T he F emi ni ne in the P rose of A ndrey Platonov

LEGENDA

LEGENDA, founded in 1995 by the European Humanities Research Centre of the University of Oxford, is now a joint imprint of the Modern Humanities Research Association and Routledge. Titles range from medieval texts to contemporary cinema and form a widely comparative view of the modern humanities, including works on Arabic, Catalan, English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, and Yiddish literature. An Editorial Board of distinguished academic specialists works in collaboration with leading scholarly bodies such as the Society for French Studies and the British Comparative Literature Association.

MHRA The Modern Humanities Research Association (MHRA) encourages and promotes advanced study and research in the field of the modern humanities, especially modern European languages and literature, including English, and also cinema. It also aims to break down the barriers between scholars working in different disciplines and to maintain the unity of humanistic scholarship in the face of increasing specialization. The Association fulfils this purpose primarily through the publication of journals, bibliographies, monographs and other aids to research.

Routledge is a global publisher of academic books, journals and online resources in the humanities and social sciences. Founded in 1836, it has published many of the greatest thinkers and scholars of the last hundred years, including Adorno, Einstein, Russell, Popper, Wittgenstein, Jung, Bohm, Hayek, McLuhan, Marcuse and Sartre. Today Routledge is one of the world's leading academic publishers in the Humanities and Social Sciences. It publishes thousands of books and journals each year, serving scholars, instructors, and professional communities worldwide.

www.routledge.com

EDITORIAL BOARD

ChairmanProfessor Martin M cLaughlin, Magdalen College, O xford

Professor Malcolm C ook, University o f Exeter (French) Professor Colin Davis, University o f Warwick

(Modern Literature, Film and Theory)Professor R obin Fiddian, Wadham College, Oxford (Spanish)

Professor Marian Hobson Jeanneret,Queen M ary University o f London (French)

Professor Catriona Kelly, N ew College, O xford (Russian) Professor Martin Maiden, Trinity College, O xford (Linguistics)

Professor Peter Matthews, St Jo h n s College, Cam bridge (Linguistics) Dr Stephen Parkinson, Linacre College, Oxford (Portuguese)

Professor Ritchie Robertson, St Joh n s College, O xford (German) Professor David Robey, University o f Reading (Italian) Professor Lesley Sharpe, University o f Exeter (German)

Professor David Shepherd, University o f Sheffield (Russian) Professor Alison Sinclair, Clare College, Cam bridge (Spanish) Professor David Treece, K ings College London (Portuguese)

Professor Diego Zancani, Balliol College, O xford (Italian)

Managing Editor D r Graham Nelson

41 Wellington Square, Oxford 0 x 1 2JF, U K

legenda@mhra.org.ukwww.legenda.mhra.org.uk

Q ~

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http://taylorandfra ncis.com

The Feminine in the Prose of Andrey Platonov

PHILIP Ross BULLOCK

LEGENDA Modern Humanities Research Association and Routledge

2005

First pubHshed 2005

Published by the Modern Humanities Research Association and Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA

LEGENDA is m1 i111pri11t <?(the Modern Humanities Research Association and Routledge

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an in forma business

© Modern Humanities Research Association and Taylor & Francis 2005

ISBN 13:978-1-900755-75-7 (pbk)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, including photocopying, recordings, fax or otherwise, without

the prior written permission of the copyright owner and the publisher.

Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to

infringe.

LEGENDA series designed by Cox Design Partnership, Witney, Oxon

Copy-Editor: Nigel Hope

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ix

Conventions xi

Introduction 1

19 22-19 29 : The O rigin o f a Master 28

19 30-19 36 : The Woman Question is Solved 84

1936—1946: The End o f an Odyssey LSI

Conclusion 204

Bibliography 207

Index 223

Bee MeponpHfl’rafl HaAO HannHarb c w em ium

[All projects m ust begin w ith w om en]

A n d rey Platonov, Zapisnye knizhki (1929)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book could not have been researched, written or published without the help and encouragement o f many individuals and organizations. All deserve thanks and credit for the improvements they have made; for any deficiencies, I take entire responsibility.

I should like to thank my publisher, Legenda, for deftly supervising the long gestation o f this book. The Modern Humanities Research Association and the Board o f the Faculty o f Medieval and Modern Languages o f the University o f Oxford made generous grants towards the cost o f publication. My doctoral research was funded by the Humanities Research Board o f the British Academy; a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship gave me time to reconsider earlier thoughts. Visits to Russia were supported by the Russian Academy of Sciences, the British Academy, Wadham College, Wolfson College, the Ilchester Fund of the Taylor Institution, and the Graduate Studies Committee o f the University o f Oxford. I should like to thank the staff o f the Taylor Institution Slavonic Library and the Bodleian Library, Oxford; the British Library and the library o f the School o f Slavonic and East European Studies, London; the library o f the University o f Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; the Russian State Library in Moscow and the Russian National Library in St Petersburg.

Catriona Kelly was an inspirational, rigorous and caring supervisor. Angela Livingstone has been a gracious yet exacting interlocutor. Gerry Smith asked just the right questions. Natal'ya Kornienko and Valery V'yugin have shown exemplary generosity with their time and scholarship. Avril Pyman nurtured an early undergraduate interest in Platonov, and without Zinaida Baeva, who first gave me a copy o f The Foundation Pit, I may never have found myself reading Platonov in the first place. In Russia, Lev Verchenov and Aida Barakchieva deserve a special mention for unstinting hospitality. At home, I have been heartened by the interest that friends have taken in my work and well­being; to name them all individually would be a gratuitous celebration o f my good fortune. However, Julie Curtis, Stefano Evangelista, Giles

x A cknowledgements

Fraser, Barbara Henry and William Whyte have each immeasurably influenced my intellectual formation. I must also thank my parents, Geoff and Denise Bullock, my sister and brother-in-law, Helen and David Graham, and my grandparents, for their love, understanding and not infrequent material support. Alice, Felix, Isabella, Isobel, Jacqueline, Jessica, Noah, Sasha and William all know who they are and why they are so important.

❖

The author and publisher make grateful acknowledgement to the following publishers for permission to reproduce copyright material:

In chapter i, from Luce Irigaray, Speculum of the Other Woman, trans. Gillian C . Gill (Ithaca, N Y : Cornell University Press, 1985), by permission o f Cornell University Press; from Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, trans. H. M . Parshley, published by Jonathan Cape. Reprinted by permission o f the Random House Group Ltd.

In chapter 2, from F. Scott Fitzgerald, T h e R ich B oy ’ . Reprinted with permission o f Scribner, an imprint o f Simon and Schuster Adult Publishing Group, from The Short Stories of F. Scott Fitzgerald, edited by Matthew J. Bruccoli. Copyright 1925, 1926 by Consolidated Magazines Corporation, renewed 1953, 1954 by Frances Scott Fitzgerald Lanahan; also by permission o f Harold O ber Associates Incorporated; from Stella Gibbons, Cold Comfort Farm (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1932), reproduced by permission o f Curtis Brown Group Ltd on behalf o f the Estate o f Stella Gibbons. Copyright Stella Gibbons 1932.

In chapter 3, from Frank Kermode, The Sense of an Ending (Oxford: O xford University Press, 1967), copyright 1966 by Oxford University Press, Inc., used by permission o f O xford University Press, Inc.; from Mikhail Bulgakov, Heart o f a Dog, trans. copyright Michael Glenny (London: Harvill, 1999), reproduced by permission o f Rogers, Coleridge and W hite Ltd; from Klaus Theweleit, Male Fantasies, Volume, i. Women, Floods, Bodies, History, trans. Stephen Conway (University o f Minnesota Press, 1987), originally published as Mannerphantasien, i. Frauen, Fluten, Korper, Geschichte, copyright 1977 by Verlag R o ter Stern. English translation copyright 1987 by the University o f Minnesota; from Alain de Botton, How Proust Can Change Your Life (London: Picador, 1997), by permission o f Macmillan U K .

In the conclusion, from Dante, Inferno, trans. Dorothy L. Sayers (Harmonds- worth: Penguin, 1947), by permission o f David Higham Associates Limited.

CONVENTIONS

The British System of Cyrillic transliteration (British Standard 2979: 1958) has been adopted, omitting diacritics and using -y to express —ii, nii and biii at the end o f personal names, e.g. Andrey, Chernyshevsky, Bely.

Even a cursory examination o f the most well-known text in editions o f Platonov will reveal the existence o f strikingly different versions: interventionist editors have often excised passages not only on poli­tical grounds, but also out o f hostility to Platonov s more extravagant imagery. Platonovs self-censorship is also an important question. Progress has been made in the preparation o f a scholarly edition o f Platonov s collected works. Readers should, however, beware o f a so- called ‘collected works’ , o f which the first two volumes appeared in the autumn of 1998. This is in fact little more than the gathering together o f previous printed editions, many o f which have been superseded. See: Andrey Platonov, Sobranie sochinenii v pyati tomakh (Moscow: Informpechat', 1998—). Publication details o f the most recent and reliable editions will be given where relevant. Where such editions are lacking, I have consulted publications which at least gesture towards reliability, usually the two multi-volume collections o f Platonovs works which appeared in 1978 and 1984-5 respectively: Andrey Platonov, Izbrannye proizvedeniya v dvukh tomakh (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, 1978); Sobranie sochinenii v trekh tomakh (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984-5). I have also cross-checked against publications dating from the authors lifetime.

Citations from works by Platonov are given in the original Russian, followed by an English translation. All other works are cited in English only. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are my own.

Q ~

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http://taylorandfra ncis.com

INTRODUCTION

And here we are again at the scandal o f female flesh, which you cannot forgive for being open to your needs. In all cases, outside o f love which is a special grace, the woman who satisfies these needs finds herself denatured and degraded in your eyes. With certain exceptions, you respect only women you don’t sleep with, your mother, your sister— inaccessible women remain your loved ones: dead wom en, exiled wom en, wom en prisoners, women saints, fiancees, angels, queens, heroines, stars, infidels, fugitives. It’s not women you love, sir, but Woman; that is, an invention which ‘real presence’ doesn’t live up to. You have a secret preference for imaginary pleasures. You fight for Isolde when it is forbidden to approach her, but as soon as she belongs to you, you place a sword between the two o f you so you can sleep in peace.

Fran^oise Parturier, Lettre ouvertc aux homines (1968)'

Reading Platonov, one constantly expects to be astonished, whether by his infamously perverse use o f language, his unremitting examination o f alienation, or his extraordinary breadth o f allusion and inter- textuality.2 Such astonishment is often felt in terms o f inadequacy or even impossibility, whether o f understanding, interpretation or trans­lation. Yet the last decade or so has seen much significant scholarship on Platonov: critics have sought to elucidate aspects o f Platonovs works;3 more and more o f Platonovs texts are now available in reliable editions, often with excellent commentaries;4 and a series of translations has granted Platonov an authoritative (British) English voice.5

Born Andrey Platonovich Klimentov in Voronezh in 1899, Platonov (the literary pseudonym he was later to take) was one o f eight children in a working-class family. After a basic education, Platonov left school aged fifteen to begin work, largely on the

2 Introduction

railways. After the October Revolution, he was able to take advantage o f new educational possibilities, enrolling first in the history faculty o f Voronezh University before transferring to a local railway polytechnic, from where he graduated in 1921 or 1922. For some years Platonov had been active in literature and politics, and frequently published literary works and journalism in local journals. His first book— a volume o f poetry entitled Golubaya glubina (The Sky-blue Depths)— appeared in 1922. Until 1926, when he moved to Moscow, he worked as a land reclamation engineer. In 1927, however, Platonov achieved literary prominence with the publication o f his first collection o f short stories, Epifanskie shlyuzy (The Epifan Locks). In the final years o f the 1920s, he worked on Kotlovan (The Foundation Pit) and the novel Chevengur (Chevengur). On several occasions during the 1930s, Platonov found himself the subject o f criticism from various directions; many works o f this period remained unpublished until long after his death. Nevertheless, he remained within the literary establishment, most notably by taking part in trips to Soviet Turkmenistan organized by the Union o f Writers. In 1936 he began to write literary criticism, and in 1937 he published his short-story collection, Reka Potudan' (The River Potudan). The following year his son was arrested; he was released only in 1941, already fatally ill with tuberculosis (he eventually died in 1943). During the years o f the Great Patriotic War (1941—$), Platonov worked as a correspondent at the front. His story ‘Vozvrashchenie’ (‘The Return’) was the subject o f harsh criticism in early 1947, and before his death from tuberculosis in 1951 he wrote, amongst other things, children’s stories and adaptations o f folk tales.6

Several key themes have come to dominate Platonov scholarship. There is a well-established tradition o f assessing the nature o f Platonov’s relationship with the Soviet state, a tradition inaugurated by Gor'ky’s ambivalence towards his ‘lyrico-satirical’ style and Platonov’s own concerns as to whether he could ever hope to be a ‘Soviet writer’ .7 Much criticism written during Platonov’s lifetime was critical o f his perceived attitude to Soviet power (which is not to say that such criticism is necessarily unperceptive).8 The suppression o f many o f Platonov’s texts in the Soviet Union (at least until perestroika and glasnost') and their iconic status in the West as instances o f tamizdat, inspired numerous emigre and western critics to search for anti-Soviet themes. Mikhail Geller’s 1982 monograph is an important work in this respect.9 Platonov’s preoccupation with the realities o f

Introduction 3

contemporary history, his tone o f desperation, and not least the unavailability o f many o f his works for many years to Soviet readers, certainly bolster critics convinced o f the possibility o f an anti-Soviet reading. Yet Platonovs satirical works also express concern at the abject state o f an ideal that, in its abstract form at least, was o f indisputable value to the writer. This is clear, for instance, in the authorial commentary which Platonov wrote as a coda to Kotlovan, where he admits that: ‘ A btop moi oinn6im>cfl, H3o6pa3iiB b cMeprn AeBOHKH in6eAb counaAiicTHHecKoro noKOAemia, ho 3ra ipeBora npOH3ouiAa Amiib or n3AHinHeH ipeBora 3a Henro AfoGiiMoe’ [The author may have been mistaken in representing in the death o f the little girl the death o f the socialist generation, but this mistake was merely the result o f excessive concern for something beloved].10 Accordingly, much recent scholarship has problematized the question o f Platonovs attitude to Soviet power, illustrating how he wrote explicitly within Soviet culture, and arguing that attempts to present political opinions as uniformly ‘pro-’ or ‘anti’-Soviet are a reductive distortion o f a complex reality.11

A second major theme is the study o f Platonovs peculiar linguistic style.12 Joseph Brodsky argued in two essays that Platonov turned the language o f the Soviet state against itself.13 Understandably, this theme has also been foregrounded by Platonov’s principal English translator, Robert Chandler.14 Whilst mention o f Platonovs language has always been something o f a commonplace, several recent studies deal in greater depth with his narrative technique and its mediation through language, demonstrating how formalist-inspired criticism is still a creative force in literary studies;'5 o f these, Robert Hodel’s monograph, Erlebte Rede bei Andrej Platonov, is particularly important for the way in which it lays bare the workings o f Platonov’s prose, scrupulously delineating the relationship between author, narrator and reader. In her ‘Svobodnaya veshch'’ : Poetika neostraneniya u Andreya Platonova, Ol'ga Meerson works from similar premises, but goes on to argue that ‘Platonov’s trademark technique o f automatization, o f re­familiarization’ 16 implicates the reader morally and ethically in the values o f the world he describes.

A parallel theme which has been the subject o f a substantial number o f articles is that o f Platonov’s philosophical heritage. The work o f Elena Tolstaya-Segal is particularly influential in this respect.17 Thomas Seifrid has continued this examination o f philosophical themes, outlining the characteristics o f Platonov’s culminating

4 Introduction

‘ontological myth’ : ‘ In essence his vision ironically conflates the Christian-idealist notion o f perishable flesh, which is usually held up as evidence for the souls transcendence (the flesh passes away, but the soul does not), with the materialist conviction that spirit is subordinated to matter.’ Seifrid concludes: ‘the corollary o f that belief for Platonov is that the soul finds itself condemned to inhabit a vessel which is itself subject to decay’ . 18

The extant approaches to Platonov have brought fruitful insights to the study o f his fiction, and all o f them have informed the writing o f this book. Yet the very prestige enjoyed by political, stylistic and philosophical considerations has meant that other important approaches remain largely untested. In seeking to verbalize Platonov’s intellectual achievements, critics have generally failed to account for the visceral intensity o f his prose, and have, willingly or otherwise, played down the awe-inspiring sense o f physicality and abjection in his work. Given the link between gender, physicality and abjection (identified, for example, by Julia Kristeva)19 it is not surprising that gender (and most particularly femininity) vanishes from the critical gaze; attempts to analyse and codify Platonov’s artistic achievement have been reduced to, at best, bewilderment, and at worst, silence, by Platonov’s representation o f the feminine.

In common with many other proletarian intellectuals, Platonov configured the ideal society in terms hostile to femininity: ‘Much o f postrevolutionary Soviet culture was pervaded with normative assertions o f fraternal comradeship and heroic selfhood paired with a desire to purge from the new culture the disturbing forces o f femininity and heterosexual eros. Among worker umters, Platonov was most explicit in this gendered vision of progress! 20 Consider, for instance, two early manifestos, ‘Dusha mira’ (‘The Soul o f the World’) and ‘Budushchii oktyabr'’ (‘The Future October’), written in 1920.21 In the first o f these, he asks rhetorically: ‘Ho hto raKoe ^emiuma?’ [But what is woman?]. He immediately produces his answer: ‘OHa ecn> >KHBoe ACHCTBeHHoe BonAomemie co3Hamia MHpa cBoero rpexa n npecrynHOcra’ [She is the living effective incarnation o f the world’s consciousness o f its own sin and criminality].22 Woman is the daughter o f Eve, the expression o f evil, ever to bear the blame for the imperfection o f the world. Moreover, the redemption offered by Platonov’s Marxian eschatology cannot be enjoyed by women, since ‘KOMMyrnicranecKoe oSmecTBo — 3 ro oGmecTBO My>KHim’ [commun­ist society is a society o f men].23 Just in case we have missed the point,

Introduction 5

he adds the following contemptuous footnote for our edification:

PaBHonpaBue mpkhhh h >kchiuhh — 3to GAaropoAHue acecTbi coimaAncroB, a He HCTHHa [...]. TeAOBenecTBO — 3to MpxecTBo, a He BonAomemie noAa — >KeHiHHHa. Kto xoneT hcthhbi, tot He MO>KeT xoTeTb h xceHimmH [...].

[The equality o f men and women are noble gestures on the part o f socialists, but not the truth. Humanity is heroism and not the incarnation o f sex, woman. He who desires the truth cannot also desire woman.]24

This theme is so ostentatiously flagged by Platonov that literary critics have not been able to ignore it entirely. Yet a comprehensive overview o f Platonov’s gendermythology remains to be written.

A tantalizing sense o f unpursued leads often emanates from Platonov criticism that does not explore gender as such: Jacques Catteau identifies instances o f female symbolism in Platonov— the uterine pit in Kotlovan, the amniotic waters o f Lake Mutevo in Chevengur—yet does not suggest the implications such symbolism might have for our reading more generally;25 Ayleen Teskey observes that in Kotlovan ‘women are the symbol o f eternal Russia— one, the dying mother, represents the old Russia; the other, her daughter, symbolizes the new’ , but does not elucidate further.26 Yet the work o f many critics might benefit from an engagement with gender theory, whatever the ultimate aim. A case in point is A. A. Kharitonovs article on the symbolism o f names in Kotlovan.27 A dozen pages o f his study are devoted to an analysis o f the significance o f male names, compared to only two for the female names, yet Kharitonov fails to consider whether this distribution might be in any way significant.

In the case o f Soviet scholars, a degree o f gender-blindness was perhaps inevitable, not only because o f suspicion o f feminism, but because o f the repression from the late 1920s o f Freuds works, which prevented both the exploitation o f his theories for the deciphering o f literary texts, and also the refinement o f these theories in the service o f gender-aware literary criticism.28 Yet for many years, Western- based critics too seemed strikingly content to take the superficial male bias o f Platonov’s literary worlds at face value. Indicative o f this trend is one o f the first pieces o f criticism to reveal the importance o f gender issues for Platonov, a polemical study o f Chevengur by Boris Paramonov. In its reading o f the novel as ‘a Gnostic utopia underpinned by homosexual psychology’ , the article initiated an understanding o f gender issues in Platonov predominantly in terms o f masculinity and its constructs.29 Whilst discussion o f the feminine in

6 Introduction

such works is unavoidable, it nonetheless constitutes a secondary theme. Svetlana Semenova, in one o f the rare examples o f native Russian criticism to address questions o f gender and sexuality, deals more systematically with female characters and feminine imagery.30 Recent years have seen increasing attention paid to such matters. A short article by Anat Vernitski suggests that the seeming anti­woman bias o f many o f Platonov’s works requires considerable re­consideration (a theme shared by the present book, but developed along very different lines),3' and in one o f the most perceptive and sophisticated contributions to Platonov scholarship to date, Keith Livers makes a compelling case for seeing female corporeality as a key element in Platonovs deliberations on the nature o f utopia and redemption.32

In recent years, then, there have been isolated examples— some of them very fine— o f gender-aware Platonov criticism. Yet a compre­hensive overview o f Platonov’s gender mythology remains to be written, and this book is the first to answer this urgent need. My work is inspired by a concern to give sustained and explicit consideration to gender issues from an avowedly feminist perspective, a perspective that has become increasingly familiar within the field o f Russian studies in recent years. I deal with such topics as Platonovs mythologies o f sexual difference, his use o f gendered metaphor, his indebtedness to the patriarchal traditions within Russian literature and society and to his reflection o f Soviet debates on gender. At the same time, my work is informed by an admiration o f the paradoxical nature o f his prose, its ability to undermine its own often hubristic ambitions. It would appear that only by writing within the confines o f the male imagination, and exploring its utopian and socialist constructs, could Platonov reveal what a perspicacious Joseph Brodsky called ‘a proclivity for dead ends’ and ‘blind-alley mentality’ in these matters.33 This book is avowedly not a search for the sort o f politically correct heroes and heroines appropriate to didactic literature. It does not ‘concern itself with the provision o f role-models for the present’ ,34 since to do so would be to pit a presumption o f moral superiority against an aesthetic achievement won under very different circumstances.

One o f the axioms running through this book is that Platonov is a utopian writer, concerned both with attempts to establish a really existing, ideal society in the form o f Soviet communism, and with the discursive practices o f utopian thought in general.35 Opinions vary as to what constitutes a utopia, but the feature o f utopian writing that

Introduction 7

concerns me here is its tendency to divide the world into black and white, eliminating the middle ground with due maximalist fervour. Discussing Nikolay Chernyshevsky s Chto delat' (What is to be Done?), Gary Saul Morson makes the following observation:

Like most utopian writers, Chernyshevsky divides his readers into two groups, a larger one whom he ‘reviles’ and a smaller one whom he flatters. In Chernyshevsky s case, this division probably derives not only from earlier utopias, but also from apocalyptic writing— a tradition on which utopias frequently draw for both millenarian imagery and prophetic rhetoric. In both utopias and apocalypses, the explicit division o f the audience functions as a provocation to choose one side or the other. The logic o f both traditions is that o f the excluded middle: there can be no innocent bystanders at the apocalypse, no disinterested contemplators o f the revolution.36

Utopia is often structured according to a set o f binary oppositions, the exact nature o f which will alter according to the ideology in question. In the context o f Soviet culture, the most famous o f these is that o f spontaneity and consciousness.37 The spontaneity/consciousness dialectic drives the teleological model o f Marxist-Leninist history, according to which

the ultimate stage o f historical development, communism, is reached in a final synthesis, which resolves the dialectic once and for all. That final synthesis or ultimate revolution will result in the triumph o f ‘consciousness,’ but the form o f ‘consciousness’ will then be such that it will no longer be in opposition to ‘spontaneity’ ; there will no longer be conflict between the natural responses o f the people and the best interests o f society. In other words, the end synthesis will resolve the age-old conflict between the individual and society.38

The spontaneity/consciousness dialectic can conveniently be mapped onto a whole range o f other binary oppositions; one o f the most important o f these is governed by notions o f sex and gender.39

As the relationship between male/masculine and female/feminine suggests, the resolution o f the dialectical tension between binary opposites is rarely as benign as the teleological model supposes. It is almost inevitably the case that the terms in the opposition are not coequal and equivalent, but exist in a hierarchy where one term is valorized at the expense o f the other. Indeed, Helene Cixous has argued that gender is the foremost opposition at work in the logo­centric and phallocentric conventions o f the Western philosophical tradition.40 The world-view based on such oppositions is, moreover,

8 Introduction

often an essentialist one, with little chance for either element to depart from its fixed identity, deviation from which is accordingly read as a deviation from that most insidious o f criteria, nature. Within this schema, there is a well-established tradition o f seeing o f male/masculine as active and female/feminine as passive. For example, Aristotle, in his Generation of Animals, argued that ‘the female always provides the material, the male that which fashions it, for this is the power we say they each possess, and this is what it is for them to be male and female... While the body is from the female, it is the soul that is from the male.’41 Early Soviet discourse was governed by a similar set o f principles: as Elizabeth Wood has argued, ‘the baba, the female figure considered to be illiterate, superstitious, and generally “ backward,” served as an important foil for the ideal o f the comrade.’42 As a writer committed to working within the paradigms o f the Soviet establishment, Platonov perpetuates this split between passivity and activity, nature and consciousness, male/masculine and female/feminine. O f course, Soviet idealism was neither the first nor the only manifestation o f such an attitude; similar beliefs could also be found in the literature and philosophy o f the fin-de-siecle and the so- called Silver Age,43 in the heritage o f Russian Orthodoxy,44 and in aspects o f traditional folk belief and urban culture.45 Platonov was to various extents influenced by all o f these, and it comes as no surprise to find the feminine in his works associated with nature, chaos and the irrational, while the masculine is read in terms o f culture, order and reason.

In a world governed by rigid binary oppositions, women are frequently marginalized and excluded, if not from the text altogether, then at least from positions o f narrative and ideological authority. Women are usually considered to be in thrall to sex and reproduction, egoism and intimacy, sentimentality and domesticity, characteristics that render them incapable o f comprehending men’s grander utopian ambitions, and which may indeed imperil the utopian project itself by seducing men from their primary task. The resulting patriarchal order is, however, often surprisingly ambiguous in the configuration o f its masculinity, a phenomenon analysed by Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick in terms o f homosociality.46 Sedgwick terms homosocial those texts which are overtly concerned with men and masculine environments, but which represent homosexual eroticism only obliquely or by inference. Homosocial settings will, despite anxieties over homo­sexuality, often be the ones accorded highest status by the dominant

Introduction 9

discourses in a culture, such as military units and factory brigades. Many o f Platonovs works frequently display homosocial charac­teristics, a corollary o f their contempt for the feminine.

Sedgwick herself suggests that there is a ‘continuum between homosocial and homosexual’ ,47 and it is in the relationship between these that her interests primarily lie. Whilst there is certainly room for an extended discussion o f Platonov in terms o f his representation o f masculinity (including both homosociality and homosexuality),48 it is important to see how the category o f the homosocial can have im­portant implications for representations o f the feminine. Leaving aside situations that thematize relationships between men, even environ­ments which seem to be less categorical in their rejection o f the feminine are often governed by underlying homosocial assumptions. According to Luce Irigaray, in a patriarchal society, ‘trade [...] takes place exclusively among men’ , and ‘women [...] pass from one man to another’,49 the unit o f exchange, as it were, in the libidinal economy o f male desire. Irigaray calls such a society homosexual and argues that ‘homosexuality is the law that regulates the socio-cultural order’ ,50 even if there can be no erotic expression o f this homosexuality. Accordingly, the mechanics o f homosociality (Sedgwick) and homosexuality (Irigaray) need to be borne in mind even in discussions o f texts which appear be to be less categorically masculinist.

In order for the heroes o f such texts to function adequately within their utopian ideals, it is first necessary to establish some form o f stable selfhood which will permit the exercise o f appropriate authority. Questions o f selfhood and authority are, o f course, key elements o f Freudian and Freudian-inspired psychoanalytic theory, which consti­tute an important part o f this book’s theoretical framework. The recourse to psychoanalytic theory is not driven by a search for normal family relations (whatever they might be); neither can it be read as a case study o f Platonov himself. Rather, I emphasize the role o f psychoanalysis in interpreting the symbolic world o f Platonov’s texts, opening out creative ambiguities and sounding meaningful silences. Moreover, psychoanalysis has consistently and creatively been appropriated by feminist theorists in their attempts to examine and challenge patriarchal structures in society, literature and literary criticism.

The aspect o f Freud’s work that is o f greatest concern here is his analysis o f the child’s progression to autonomy by resolution o f the Oedipus complex. In its earliest life, the infant finds all its drives

io Introduction

satisfied by the presence o f the maternal body; satisfaction o f these desires leads to feelings o f wholeness and contentment. The mother exists purely for the satisfaction o f the infant s demands; indeed, this relationship is so intense and exclusive that it can barely be called a relationship at all since for the demanding infant, both mother and environment are little more than extensions o f its own body and being. Into this idyllic realm steps the avenging father who breaks up the mother-child dyad, reclaiming the mother for himself and forcing the child into a position o f autonomy as an independent subject. Pleasurable as the pre-Oedipal world may be, the child can be expelled from it by the threat o f the ultimate punishment, castration. 51

However, for all his claims to scientific rationalism, Freud bequeathed less an objective model o f child development, than a powerful metaphor for the alienation that is at the heart o f modernity. Christopher Lasch provides an invaluable summary o f such alienation in his book, The Minimal Self.

The fundamental importance o f the distinction between self and not-self— the source o f all other distinctions, it has rightly been said— might suggest that it serves as the first principle o f mental life, the axiomatic premise without which mental life cannot even begin. In fact, however, it is a distinction that is accepted, in the infancy o f life, only with the greatest reluctance, after fierce inner struggles to deny it; and it remains the source o f our existential uneasiness, as well as the source o f our intellectual mastery o f the world around us.

Mental life in the broadest sense— as opposed to the life o f the mind— begins not with a clear understanding o f the boundaries between the self and the surrounding world o f objects but, on the contrary, with the blissful feeling o f ‘oceanic’ peace and union, as Freud called it. Selfhood presents itself, at first, as a painful separation from the surrounding environment, and this original experience o f overwhelming loss becomes the basis o f all subsequent experiences o f alienation.>2

Lasch turns Freud s biologism into a broader metaphor for loss, some­thing that finds poignant expression in Platonov s Oedipally challenged heroes, variously afflicted by anxiety at the inevitable otherness o f the maternal body, a poignant sense o f existential alienation and an overwhelming inability to master the utopia they so ardently desire.

At this juncture, Jacques Lacans useful development o f Freuds theories recommends itself to the feminist reader o f modernist fiction. Rejecting Freuds physiological assumptions, Lacan relocates the subject in language. Two o f Lacans most influential contributions to

Introduction i i

psychoanalytic theory— the link between the Oedipus crisis and the ‘mirror stage’ o f self-recognition, and the concept o f the phallus— bring the alienation and fragmentation at the heart o f Freuds Oedipal metaphor to fuller expression. It is the function o f the mirror stage ‘to establish a relation between organism and its reality [...], between the Innenwelt and the Umwelt\si Before this, the child has lived in a blissful state o f oneness with the maternal body, the mother-child dyad functioning as an extension o f the intrauterine state.54 During the mirror stage, the child is obliged to recognize itself as an autonomous entity. Yet the child, because o f its lack o f physical co-ordination, is unable to satisfy its desires and will consequently retain a sense o f dislocation and satisfaction; the experience o f the speaking subject will forever be mediated through what Lacan terms the ‘fragmented body’.55 As Juliet Mitchell states, ‘the self, first gained in its image in a mirror, is in its very creation constituted in a situation o f “ alienation” ’ .56

Unsurprisingly, the child resists this process, preferring the security o f the pre-Oedipal space to the risk o f autonomy as a speaking subject. As in Freud, this process is brought about by the intervention o f an outside force. Lacan draws on Freud’s idea o f castration by the father to posit the phallus as the symbol o f autonomy. If the child is to proceed to adulthood, ‘the duality o f the relation between mother and child must be broken [...]. In Lacan’s account, the phallus stands for that moment o f rupture.’57 Adult life becomes the endless pursuit o f an illusory sense o f wholeness, with the phallus as the ultimate symbol o f authority which allows the individual to pin down the endless chain o f signification, if only for a moment: ‘For the phallus is a signifier, a signifier whose function, in the intra-subjective economy o f the analysis, lifts the veil from the function performed in the mysteries. For it is the signifier intended to designate as a whole the effects o f the signified, in that the signifier conditions them by its presence as a signifier.’58 The phallus stands for order and the law, and possession o f the phallus is the reward for successfully overcoming the Oedipal crisis. Thereafter, to possess the phallus is to inscribe oneself into the dominant power structures o f a hierarchical society, where language and authority are configured in the name o f the father, what Lacan terms le nom du pere, an aural pun which threatens both castration (the ‘no’) and selfhood (the ‘name’).59

Much as Freud’s and Lacan’s models o f child development and the

12 Introduction

subsequent mental life o f the adult are shot through with questionable gender stereotypes,60 they are nonetheless crucial for a gendered reading o f Platonov s works. I will dwell on two substantive impli­cations o f psychoanalytical models for our understanding o f Platonov’s seemingly essentialist and misogynist utopias. One reason for the difficulty in effecting the Oedipal rupture is that it forces the child to sacrifice the comfort o f the maternal body. The adult s claim to speak as a unified subject seems to recapture this lost idyll. Yet, as Lacan’s work suggests,

‘ identity’ and ‘wholeness’ remain precisely at the level o f fantasy. Subjects in language persist in their belief that somewhere there is a point o f certainty, o f knowledge and o f truth. W hen the subject addresses its demand outside itself to another, this other becomes the fantasied place o f just such a knowledge or certainty. Lacan calls this the Other— the side o f language to which the speaking subject necessarily refers. The Other appears to hold the ‘truth’ o f the subject and the power to make good its loss. But this is the ultimate fantasy.61

It takes little to gender this model in order to provide an account o f how the alienated male subject reifies the female body and feminine identity to bolster his flagging ego. The fragmented subject seeks to locate his wholeness in an array o f metaphysical speculations which would guarantee an elusive truth: ‘Woman is constructed as an absolute category (excluded and elevated at one and the same time), a category which serves to guarantee [...] unity on the side o f the man. The man places the woman at the basis o f his fantasy, or constitutes fantasy through the woman.’62 This strategy is employed by Platonov throughout his works, where masculine selfhood is constantly imperilled, whether by brutal external circumstances or incapacitating psychological doubt. Platonov’s heroes seek self-preservation in the simultaneous denigration and deification o f the category o f woman, an immemorial manoeuvre on the part o f so many male writers (and one wittily exposed by Fran^oise Parturier in the epigraph to this introduction).

The second element to consider here is the way in which both Freud and Lacan configure authority in explicitly male terms, Freud as the threat o f castration by the jealous father, Lacan as le nom du pere and the phallus. Freud’s indebtedness to nineteenth-century physiology obliged him to consider women as physically inferior to men.63 With Lacan, the case is more complicated; in theory, a

Introduction 13

distinction between the phallus and the penis (representing symbolic versus biological reality) ought to be made, yet in practice the two are often conflated, an act ‘by which women are systematically excluded from positive self-definition and potential autonomy’ .64 Yet, essentialist as Lacan’s logic is, it has the virtue o f illuminating differing male and female attitudes to an individual’s place within patriarchal discourse. For the male subject, entry into the symbolic order, itself guarded by the phallus, is facilitated by the fact that he owns the phallus. This entry may be uncomfortable, but nevertheless, the male subject is granted a privileged position in language and society.

The female subject, on the other hand, finds herself in an altogether more invidious position. Although the phallus is supposedly available to any speaking subject, an essentialist understanding o f its function suggests how the female subject can never own the phallus, merely acquire it on a provisional basis. For women within the symbolic order, authenticity is impossible; by submitting to the rules o f the phallic order, woman, as Luce Irigaray argues, ‘is renouncing the specificity o f her own relationship to the imaginary’ .65 The symbolic order o f patriarchy forces women into subject positions governed by the phallus, positions that are inimical to feminine selfhood; whatever benefits this may appear to bring, it will always be at the cost o f authenticity. Such a model is critical when considering texts charac­terized by the presence o f strong women; their presence may be motivated less by a re-evaluation o f the previous rejection o f the feminine, than its licensing in terms that in fact recall those o f the masculinist utopia with which we began.

The models o f selfhood and authority, as well as the binary oppositions that govern Platonov’s utopias, are, however, almost impossible to sustain. His characters exist in societies o f considerable essentialism and patriarchy, yet seem uneasy with the roles demanded o f them. The Oedipal rupture is far from easy, and all-too-common is the hero who rejects the challenge o f autonomy and prefers the chimeric, pre-Oedipal wholeness o f the maternal body, whose comforting spaces are both eschatological (in that they seek to jfnit an end to time) and regressive (in that they seek to undo time). The homosocial utopia is solipsistic and isolated, proud and lonely, absurd and impossible, and it is this configuration o f utopia that makes Platonov’s works so compelling. I have already suggested ways in which Platonov’s representation o f the feminine is contingent on a set o f essentialist and hierarchized binary oppositions, and on the status of

14 Introduction

women within psychoanalytic discourse, both o f which are problematic for the feminist reader. Yet a gendered reading o f Platonov also illustrates that the feminine is in no way confined by these categories, and can, from its position beyond them, call into question many o f the ostensible assumptions o f a given text. Put simply, many o f Platonovs female characters seem refreshingly unconcerned by the metaphysical angst that torments his male characters (although such idealization is not always the most propi­tious o f attitudes). This lack o f concern not only casts doubt over the very validity o f utopian thinking, but eventually leads Platonov to consider a profound engagement with the feminine, which will guide him away from many o f the maximalist assumptions o f utopia, and indeed from utopia itself.

In keeping with my interest in the symbolic as well as the socio­logical, it seems important to locate the recuperation o f the feminine in textual practice as much as in questions o f representation. As Eric Naiman has argued, utopia is a more problematic category than is often assumed, inherently undermined by its own discursive ambiguities:

A constant feature in the construction o f a would-be perfect world is the isolation o f the ideal society; millenarian communities strive to wall themselves o ff from the rest o f the world, and authors o f utopian projects frequently seek to bracket their descriptions with protective narratives and framing devices that serve as a moat s narratological equivalent. In the fact o f description, however, lies the seed o f the utopias disintegration. The hermetic seal between the ideal, sacred land and the contagious imperfection o f the reality known to and constituting the reader is necessarily broken by the mere fact o f the texts existence and transmission. [...] The utopian enterprise is doomed by the necessity o f being expressed and limited through the nonutopian, historically determined communicative instrument o f language.67

Accordingly, Platonov s utopias are destabilized by the ambiguities o f transmission inherent in any utopia. But— and this is my substantive point— they are also destabilized by the ambiguities o f the modernist text itself. Rather than lament the ambiguities o f transmission outlined by Naiman, the feminist reader can rejoice in them, since it is here that it is possible to locate a recuperation o f the feminine.

In October 1920, as one o f the two Voronezh delegates to the First All-Union Congress o f Proletarian Writers in Moscow, Platonov was asked ‘KaioiM AjrreparypHbiM HanpaBAemruM bbi conyBCTByere h a h

npHHaAAOKHTe?’ [what literary movements do you sympathize with

Introduction 15

or belong to?] His reply was simple: ‘miKaKiiM, iiMeio cBoe’ [none, I have my own], a reply he could easily have made throughout his creative life.68 Debate still rages about what kind o f writer Platonov is, but it seems safe, at least to me, to consider him a modernist, even an arch-modernist (Brodsky’s comparison o f Platonov to writers such as Joyce, Musil and Kafka comes to mind here).69 Platonovs works are self-referential and intertextual, and evince a sophisticated awareness o f tradition and their place in it. His use o f language is famously demanding, and his narrative style fluid and capricious. He portrays a world o f fragmented perception and interpretative instability. Ambitious in his metaphysics, Platonov is also fascinated by corporeal reality, for which he tries to find a corresponding language; he was, in Eric Naiman’s words, ‘one o f the first twentieth-century writers to ask himself whether he is valuing the flesh (that oppressed member o f the body/soul dichotomy) as a good proletarian writer should.’70 In his frequently daring and uncomplimentary depictions o f human bodies (often women’s bodies), Platonov offers a view o f language and the body that serves to undermine the values o f the text’s surface.

Much o f this, as well as his fascination with the relationship between self and other, suggests a kinship with the kind o f textuality that post-structuralist French feminists would call ecriture feminine, or that celebrated by Kristeva in her Revolution du langage poetique.71 Ecriture feminine relocates writing in the female body, or the semiotic space o f the pre-Oedipal child, thereby challenging the authority o f patriarchal discourse. This ‘writing the body’ is ‘ “ difficult” [...], modernist, expressionist, James-Joyce writing’ ,72and offers a view o f language and the world as ‘irrational, non-linear and incompre­hensible’ .73 Yet ‘ ecriture feminine is a feminine discourse, not a female language, and can therefore be written by both men and women’,74 and many o f the authors seen as best embodying this kind o f writing have indeed been men (Celine, Genet, Joyce, Lautreamont, Mallarme, Proust). Although many o f these men may have held opinions that feminists might find questionable, the autonomous and polyvalent nature o f the modernist text is at one remove from its ostensible ideology, and it is in the rupture between intention and incarnation that the feminist critic can locate a recuperation o f the feminine. Moreover, this process is facilitated, invited even, by an understanding o f Platonov’s narrative technique, in which ‘there is hardly a statement, idea or emotion that can confidently be attributed to a single narrative authority.’75

16 Introduction

The overarching, not to say utopian, ambitions o f psychoanalysis or ecriture feminine certainly hold their attractions for reading all intransigent texts; there is also a logic to these models when considering Platonov, a writer familiar with Freud s ideas, and whose texts evince a sophisticated modernism. However, a justifiable criticism to be made o f aspects o f these theories is that they are potentially ahistoric. To militate against the risk o f this, my readings o f Platonov are rooted in a strongly historical context. Robert Chandler has said that he knows ‘o f few writers, if any, who have been able to respond so immediately, and at the same time profoundly, to events around them’.76 This is certainly true o f Platonov s reflection o f contemporary debates about and changing attitudes towards gender in the first three decades or so o f the Soviet period.

Platonov constantly strove to understand the nature o f the world and humanity’s place in that world; he worked to create a literary language that would communicate such ideas and the thought processes that had led to them. His works emphatically do not offer easy and convenient answers; rather, they offer provisional and contingent outlines o f his ongoing deliberations, less answers than examinations o f whether the question was well-put in the first place. That said, my readings o f Platonov s works proceed chronologically, assuming some form o f artistic and ideological evolution. Without wishing to impose on Platonov a simplistic and straightforward journey to (feminist) consciousness, it is clear that some sort o f development can be discerned in his prose. By concentrating on Platonov s prose alone one can follow his changing ideas on gender in a form in which he worked throughout his life, and o f which he is an acknowledged master. I have focused both on those prose works which explicitly foreground issues o f gender, as well as on works where Platonov makes striking use o f gendered imagery to illustrate other, apparently unrelated, themes. Where works are excluded from detailed consideration, it is not because their symbolism is irrelevant or obvious, but because to devote detailed attention to them would mean repeating points already made in relation to other texts.

The works o f Platonov s earliest period o f literary endeavour, which lasted from 1918 to early 1924, receive little attention. Their extravagant and polemical tone makes them uncongenial to sustained investigation, and in any case, the main outlines o f this period have been surprisingly well documented.77 Accordingly, Chapter 1 (1922-1929) begins with a highly compressed account o f some of

Introduction 17

these texts as background to the consummate and elusive prose o f Platonov’s first maturity, although elements o f their patriarchal and essentialist logic can be detected in later works. The historical background to this opening chapter covers a period in which many contradictory elements were at work.78 The years immediately following the October Revolution may have been cruel, but they offered an exhilarating eschatological intensity as the teleological promises o f communism were realized in the form o f the first— and only— perfect society. The martial rhetoric o f the Civil War meant that violence and destruction were readily assimilated into a literary language already well-primed by fin-de-siecle notions o f apocalypse. The militaristic atmosphere meant that the dominant values tended to be masculine— heroism, a Promethean sense o f violent creativity and an intensely Nietzschean sense o f will. Contrasting notions o f nurture, compromise and attentiveness, often read as feminine, were ideo­logically suspect. Even after the Civil War, masculine values were perpetuated in aspects o f Soviet Russia’s self-image: Bolshevik dei­fication o f the proletariat meant that the image o f the urban male worker dominated; religion was replaced by science, whose ascendancy was predicated on the ability o f the rational intellect to control and transform its chosen material.

Significantly— in the eyes o f diehard revolutionaries at least— the achievements o f the Revolution were threatened not so much by external enemies, as by bourgeois hangovers from Imperial Russia, reborn in the form o f the New Economic Policy (NEP). If NEP can be said to have values, then they can conveniently be read as feminine, in contrast with the masculine ones o f the Civil War and War Communism; conspicuous consumption, transient pleasures and egotism took the place o f abstinence, asceticism and the collective. The compromises o f NEP were seemingly suspended in 1928 with the declaration o f the first Five-Year Plan (dealt with in more detail in Chapter 2). It is in this context that the texts discussed in Chapter 1 are set. In ‘Efirnyi trakt’ (‘The Ether Tract’) and ‘Epifanskie shlyuzy’ (‘The Epifan Locks’), Platonov pursues the utopian theme o f the reconstruction o f the world by means o f technology, and the rejection o f domesticity in favour o f revolutionary activity. These works configure the feminine as a catch-all term for undesirable counter­revolutionary values, yet, interestingly, the feminine (in the form of chthonic forces) is already perceived as a challenge to the idealism of masculine endeavour, even if this perception can be seen as reasserting

18 Introduction

stereotypical notions o f feminine unpredictability and irrationality. Chevengur suggests itself as a representation o f a brotherly collective which is loftily solipsistic and impermeable to distressing physicality. However, the attempt to establish the classical body o f homosociality is constantly jeopardized by physical decay and discursive ambiguity. Moreover, the comforting maternal imagery which dominates this supposedly ideal society illustrates the regressive nature o f utopian thought: by configuring utopia as a womb-like space, Platonov proselytizes not wholeness and harmony but the rejection o f life itself. Chevengur, whilst not ignoring history, is perhaps Platonovs most ambitiously discursive and self-referential work, in which concepts o f time, history, utopia and the nature o f fiction itself are subject to intense examination. Hereafter, Platonovs prose becomes evermore explicitly concerned with Soviet reality.

There is a tendency in Platonov scholarship to concentrate on works written at the end o f the 1920s and start o f the 1930s, with works such as Chevengur and Kotlovan still dominating critical debate. It is my intention to challenge this disparity by paying greater attention than is usual to works written from the mid-1930s onwards. Accordingly Chapters 2 and 3 are devoted to works written between 1930 and 1946, and seek to integrate the later works, often seen as little more than a coda to earlier achievements, into an overarching account o f Platonovs gender mythology. Chapter 2 (1930-1936) analyses texts which foreground the feminine. Platonovs own incessant interest in issues o f gender was given timely and anxious encouragement by changes in Soviet policy. Promoting female equality had always been an official part o f Bolshevik thinking, and in 1930 Stalin declared the ‘woman question’ solved. Women were now free— and expected— to play a leading part in Soviet life. Pragmatically, this was necessitated by the policies o f rapid industrialization and collectivization which were to involve the entire population; the theoretical promotion o f women to positions o f ideological and administrative authority was a key way o f demonstrating social mobility and the energy o f Stalinist reform. To this social role was also shackled a redefinition o f womens role within the family, which was comprehensively revalorized throughout the 193os. Women were expected to be guardians o f the family, itself the foundation o f the greater Stalinist community. The values they were expected to inculcate were, however, not so much political and ideological as cultural; they embodied a newly articulated interest in

Introduction 19

culture, consumption and affluence, which were the everyday right o f Soviet citizens now that the promise o f socialism was to be delivered in the form o f Stalinism.

In Kotlovan, Platonov depicts the tragic impossibility o f excising the feminine. The heroes o f the novel are unable to realize their dreams, and the cost o f their commitment to utopia is an aching sense o f personal emptiness. The despair o f this conclusion was mitigated for Platonov himself as a writer, though, by the fact that at this time Stalinism was beginning to offer a partial reconciliation with the feminine, a reconciliation that served to revivify Platonov’s sense o f idealism. For him, the creation o f positive heroines became a way of signalling an abiding faith in utopia at the very moment when it had seemed to founder. Yet even here, Platonov continued to configure the feminine in terms injurious to its equivalence with the masculine. An analysis o f ‘Yuvenil'noe more’ (‘Sea o f Youth’) illustrates how the presence in both text and society o f the Stalinist female activist, the vydvizhenka, is conditional upon her capitulation to Stalinist cultural centralism and to phallogocentric discourse. The feminine is either reified in order to provide a powerful metaphor for revolutionary self- sacrifice, or it is cast as allegory to inspire loyalty in others. The chapter continues with a discussion o f the oriental theme in ‘Takyr’ and ‘Dzhan’ : here, the liberation o f Asian republics is depicted as the liberation o f a girl from oppressive patriarchy. In both cases (girl and nation), liberation in fact implies assimilation. This process is paralleled in another narrative o f liberation, this time the hero’s overcoming o f the Oedipal crisis. It might seem that Platonov is at last free to permit the presence o f authentic female characters in his texts. However, as the reading o f ‘Schastlivaya Moskva’ (‘Happy Moscow’) that concludes the chapter demonstrates, Platonov’s apparent acceptance o f the feminine ultimately fails to conceal an abiding sense o f discomfort. He virulently expresses his horror not only at female participation in Stalinist society, but also at the feminization o f Soviet society which was undertaken in the name o f kul'turnost'.

Chapter 3 (1936—1946) deals with many o f Platonov’s most famous shorter works. Whilst the period dealt with in this chapter witnessed fewer major debates about and shifts in gender policy, the historical background is still relevant. Whilst the resurgence o f middle-class values in the 1930s had horrified Platonov, he was nonetheless obliged to revisit previously spurned notions o f domesticity and femininity as the only sites o f refuge from political persecution and ideological

20 Introduction

anguish engendered by the purges o f the late 1930s. This theme was to be revisited after the Great Patriotic War, itself a notable hiatus in gender policy, as women once again occupied positions o f authority in the home and at work as their menfolk departed for (and often failed to return from) the front. Given the extravagant utopianism and literary innovation o f the works discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, Platonovs later works can seem insipid and conventional, as if the demands o f socialist realism had robbed him o f his genius. It will be argued here that such works are in fact a consistent and consummate working-out o f Platonovs existing concerns and aesthetics.

Chapter 3 begins with a discussion o f ‘Fro’ (‘Fro’) and ‘Reka Potudan'’ (‘The River Potudan’), which illustrate how the feminine and domestic reveal the blind-spot o f hubristic utopianism; Platonov contends that any attempt to create an ideal society will founder if it is based on too rigorous an exclusion o f supposedly hostile elements. Yet, as my analysis o f a series o f short stories written mostly in the second half o f the 1930s seeks to show, Platonovs concern with the family conceals an attempt to confine the feminine by usurping potential female fecundity and passing the nurture o f children into the care o f a safely masculinist state. In his war stories, Platonov is granted leave by historical force majeure to abandon domesticity and return to the blood and sweat o f the battlefield. Moreover, Platonov uses self- sacrifice to mask a covert return to the thanatic and Oedipal urges first seen in Chevengur. In ‘Vozvrashchenie’ , Platonov revisits the themes which opened this chapter. The careful observation o f post-war upheaval facilitates an understanding o f the domestic which is no longer based on unswerving loyalty to state-sponsored utopianism, but on the comfort which dialogue with the feminine can offer. I argue that Platonov’s representation o f the feminine in terms o f domesticity and intimacy is not so much an expression o f traditional gender stereotyping (although there certainly is an element o f that) as the ultimate exposure o f the futility o f masculine pride. The final, tragic years o f Platonov’s life are more or less ignored. Though he worked on various film scripts, and prepared two collections o f folk stories, in none o f these do we witness any serious development o f his aesthetic approach or ideological credo. It seems more befitting a tribute to Platonov’s genius to end on a high point, with the moving and subtle narrative that is ‘Vozvrashchenie’ .

Introduction 21

Notes to Introduction1. Fran^oise Parturier, Lcttrc onverte a n x hom ines (Paris: Albin Michel, 1968), trans.

Elissa Gelfand in Elaine Marks and Isabelle de Courtivron (eds.), N e w French

Fem inism s (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1981), 59-63 (62).2. Angela Livingstone expresses similar sentiments in ‘The Pit and the Tower:

Andrei Platonovs Prose Style’, Essays in Poetics 22 (1997), 139-57 (139).3. Recent monographs include: K. A. Barsht, K h n d o zh estven n a ya antropologiya

A n d rcy a Platonova (Voronezh: Izdatel'stvo Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta, 2001); K. A. Barsht, P oetika p r o x y A n d rcy a

P la to n o va (St Petersburg: Filologicheskii fakuLtet Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2000); Pia-Susan Berger-Biigel, A n d r e j P la to n o v:

D e r R o m a n ‘Scastlivaja M o s k v a ' ini K o n te x t seines Schaffens nn d seiner P h ilo so p h ic, Arbeiten und Texte zur Slavistik 65 (Munich: Otto Sagner, 1999); Robert Hodel, E rleb te R e d e hei A n d r e j P lato n o v: von V zvezdnoj pustyne his Cevengur, Slavische Literaturen: Texte und Abhandlungen 23 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2001); N. V. Kornienko, ‘ Istoriya teksta i biografiya A. P. Platonova (1926-1946)’, Z d e s ' i tep er ’ 1 (1993), 1-320; Kheli [Heli] Rostov, M ifo p o etika

A n d rcy a Platonova v rom ane Schastlivaya Moskva, Slavica Helsingiensia 19 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2000) [available at http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/ julkaisut/hum/slavi/vk/kostov/]; Thomas Langerak, A u d r e y P la to n o v: m aterialy

dlya biografii 1 8 9 9 - 1 9 2 (Amsterdam: Pegasus, 1995); Oleg Lasunsky, Z h i t e l '

rodnogo go ro d a : V o ro n ezhsk ic g o d y A n d rc y a Platonov, 1 8 9 0 - 19 2 6 (Voronezh: Izdatel'stvo Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 1999); N. M. Malygina, K h n d o z h e s tv e n n y i m ir A n d rc y a P lato n o va (Moscow: Moskovskii pedagogicheskii universitet, 1995); Ol'ga Meerson, ‘Svohodnaya vesh ch ' Poetika

neostraneniya n A n d rcy a Platonova (Berkeley: Berkeley Slavic Specialities, 1997); Audun J. Morch, T h e N o velistic A p proach to the U topian Q u estio n : P latonov's

te v e n g n r in the L ig h t o f D ostoevskij's A n t i-U to p ia n L ega cy , Acta Humaniora 48 (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1998); Thomas Seifrid, A n d r e i P la to n o v:

Uncertainties o f S p ir it (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); E. A. Yablokov, N a beregn neba: R o m a n A n d rcy a P latonova ‘C h c vc n g u r ', Studiorum Slavicorum Monumenta 22 (St Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 2001). Important collections of articles include: Robert Hodel and Jan Peter Locher (eds.), Sprache

n n d E rz a h ln n g bei A n d r e j P la to n o v , Slavica Helvetica 58 (Berne: Peter Lang, 1998); N. V. Kornienko (ed.), ‘Strana filo so fo v' A n d rcy a P laton ova: problem y tvorchestva

(Moscow: Nasledie, 1993); N. V. Kornienko (ed.), ‘Strana f ilo s o fo v ’ A n d rcy a

P laton ova: problem y tvorchestva. V yp n sk 2 (Moscow: Nasledie, 1995); N. V. Kornienko (ed.), ‘Strana filo so fo v ' A n d rcy a P lato n o va: problem y tvorchestva. V y p n sk 3

(Moscow: Nasledie, 1999); N. V. Kornienko (ed.) ‘Strana filo so fo v ' A n d rcy a

Platon ova: p roblem y tvorchestva. V yp n sk 4 (Moscow: Nasledie, 2000); N. V. Kornienko (ed.) ‘Strana filo so fo v ' A n d rcy a P laton ova: problem y tvorchestva. I 'y p n s k 5

(Moscow: IMLI RAN, 2003); N. V. Kornienko and E. D. Shubina (eds.), A u d re y

P lato n o v: M ir tvorchestva (Moscow: Sovremennyi pisatel', 1994); N. V. Kornienko and E. D. Shubina (eds.), A u d re y P lato n o v: V ospom inaniya sovrem en niko v : M a teria ly

k biografii (Moscow: Sovremennyi pisatel', 1994); Angela Livingstone (ed.), Essays in Poetics 26 (2001): A H u n d red Years o f A n d re i P lato n o v (Keele: Keele Students Union Press, 2001); Angela Livingstone (ed.), Essays in Poetics 27

22 Introduction

(2002): A H u n d red Years o f A n d re i P laton ov (Keele: Keele Students Union Press, 2002); T. A. Nikonova (ed.), A u d re y P lato n o v: Issledovaniya i m aterialy (Voronezh: Izdatel'stvo voronezhskogo universiteta, 1993); Tvorchestvo A n d rey a P latonova:

Issledovaniya i m aterialy (Saint Petersburg: Nauka, 1995); Tvorchestvo A n d rey a

P laton ova: Issledovaniya i m ateria ly K n ig a 2 (Saint Petersburg: Nauka, 2000). Also worthy of note are the chapters on Platonov in Eliot Borenstein, M en W ithout

W om en: M a scu lin ity a nd R evo lu tio n in R u ssia n Fiction, ig i 7 ~ i g 2 g (Durham, NC, and London: Duke University Press, 2000), 191-263. Other important articles will be cited where relevant.

4. The publication of Platonov’s works in critical editions is perhaps the most pressing issue of current scholarship: see the note on conventions at the front of this book.

5. Audrey Platonov, T h e F ou n dation P it, trans. Robert Chandler and Geoffrey Smith (London: Harvill, 1996); H a p p y M oscow , trans. Robert and Elizabeth Chandler (London: Harvill, 2001); Robert Chandler (ed.), T h e Portable P lato n o v,

Glas: New Russian Writing 20 (Birmingham: Glas, 1999); T h e R etu rn a n d O th er

Stories, trans. Robert and Elizabeth Chandler and Angela Livingstone (London: Harvill, 1999); S o u l, trans. Robert and Elizabeth Chandler and Olga Meerson (London: Harvill, 2003).

6. For more detailed biographical information see: Hodel, E rlebte R e d e , 4-9; Langerak, A u d re y P lato n o v: Lasunsky, Z l i i t e l ' rodnogp goroda; Seifrid, A n d re i

Platonov, 2-13.7. G o r 'h y i sovetshie p isa teli: n e izd an naya perepiska, Literaturnoe Nasledstvo 70

(Moscow: IzdateLstvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1963), 313-15.8. For hostile contemporary reviews of ‘Usomnivshiisya Makar’, ‘Vprok’, various

stories of the late 1930s and ‘Vozvrashchenie’, see: L. Averbakh, ‘O tselostnykh masshtabakh i chastnykh Makarakh’, N a literaturnom postu 21/22 (1929) and O k ty a b r ' 11 (1929); A. Fadeev, ‘Ob odnoi kulatskoi khronike’, K rasnaya n o v ' 5/6 (1931); A. Gurvich, ‘Andrey Platonov’, K rasnaya n o v ' 10 (1937); V. V. Ermilov, ‘Klevetnicheskii rasskaz A. Platonova’, Literaturnaya ga zeta , 4 Jan. 1947, 4, reprinted in N. V. Kornienko and E. D. Shubina (eds.), A n d re y P lato n o v:

V ospom inaniya sovrem en nikov: M a teria ly k biogrqfii (Moscow: Sovremennyi pisateL, 1994), 256—67, 268—78, 358—413 and 467—73, respectively.

9. Mikhail Geller, A n d re y P latonov v po isk ak h schast'ya (Paris: YMCA-Press, 1982). For a more extensive introduction to pre-p erestro ik a attitudes to Platonov both in the Soviet Union and the West, see: Ayleen Teskey, ‘Platonov Criticism since 1958: A Comparison of Soviet and Emigre attitudes’, Scottish S lavo n ic R e v ie w 4 (1985), 81-98.

10. Andrey Platonov, K o tlo van : Tekst. M a teria ly tvorcheskoi istorii (St Petersburg: Nauka, 2000), 1 16.

1 1. Eric Naiman, ‘ “ Iz istiny ne sushchestvuet vykhoda” : Andrey Platonov mezhdu dvukh utopii’, Literaturnoe obozrenie 9 (1994), 233—50, and ‘V zhopu prorubit' okno: seksual'naya patologiya kak ideologicheskii kalambur u Andreya Platonova’, N o v o e literaturnoe obozrenie 4 (1998), 60—76; Thomas Seifrid, Platonov, ‘Socialist Realism, and the Legacy of the Avant-garde’, in John E. Bowlt and Olga Matich (eds.), Laboratory o f D rea m s: T h e R u ssian A v a n t-G a rd e a nd

C u ltu ra l E x p e rim e n t (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996), 235—44.12. Still the most significant contribution to this branch of Platonov studies

Introduction 23

is S. Bocharov, ‘ “ Veshchestvo sushchestvovaniya” (Vyrazhenie v proze)\ in Problctny k lm do zh estven n o i form y sotsialisticheskogo rcalizm a (Moscow: Nauka, 1971), 310-50, reprinted in N. V. Kornienko and E. D. Shubina (eds.), A u d r e y

P la to n o v: M ir tvorchestva (Moscow: Sovremennyi pisatel', 1994), 10—46.13. Joseph Brodsky, foreword to Andrey Platonov, K o tlo van (Ann Arbor: Ardis,

1973), 5-6, reprinted in N. V. Kornienko and E. D. Shubina (eds.), A n d r e y

P lato n o v: M ir tvorchestva (Moscow: Sovremennyi pisatel', 1994), 154—6, and ‘Catastrophes in the Air’ , in Less T h a n O n e : Selected E ssays (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1986), 268-313.

14. Robert Chandler, ‘Introduction’, in Andrey Platonov, T h e Fo u n da tio n P it, trans. Robert Chandler and Geoffrey Smith (London: Harvill, 1996) , pp. xi-xx.

15. Hodel, E rleb te R e d e ; Hodel and Locher (eds.), Sprache u n d E rz a h lu n g ; Meerson, ‘Svobodnaya vesh ch '

16. Olga Meerson, ‘Andrei Platonov’s Re-familiarization: The Perils and Potencies of Perceptive Inertia’, Essays in Poetics 26 (2001), 21-37 (23). A useful elucidation and development of Meerson s work can be found in Angela Livingstone, ‘Danger and Deliverance: Reading Andrei Platonov’ , S la vo n ic a n d E a st E u ro pean

R e v ie w 80/3 (2002), 401-16.17. Elena Tolstaya-Segal, ‘Ideologicheskie konteksty Platonova’, R u ssia n Literature 9

(1981), 231-80, reprinted in N. V. Kornienko and E. D. Shubina (eds.), A n d re y

P lato n o v: M ir tvorchestva (Moscow: Sovremennyi pisateL, 1994), 47—83; ‘K voprosu o literaturnoi allyuzii v proze Andreya Platonova: PredvariteLnye nablyudeniya’, Slavica H ierosolym itaua 5—6 (1981), 355-69; ‘Naturfilosofskie temy v tvorchestve Andreya Platonova 20-kh-30-kh gg.’, Slavica H ierosolym itaua 4 (1979), 223-54; ‘O svyazi nizshikh urovnei teksta s vysshimi (Proza Andreya Platonova)’, Sla vica H iero so lym itau a 2 (1982), 169—212; ‘ “ Stikhiinye sily” : Platonov i PiTnyak (1928—1929)’, Slavica H ierosolym itaua 3 (1978), 89—109, reprinted in N. V. Kornienko and E. D. Shubina (eds.), A n d r e y P lato n o v: M ir

tvorchestva (Moscow: Sovremennyi pisatel’, 1994), 84-104.18. Seifrid, A n d re i P lato n o v, 108.19. Julia Kristeva, P ouvoirs de Vhorreur (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1980), trans. Leon

Roudiez as Pow ers o f H orror (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982).20. Mark D. Steinberg, Proletarian Im agination : Self, M o d e rn ity a n d the Sacred in R u ssia ,

19 10 —19 2 3 (Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell University Press, 2002), 115 (emphasis added).

21. Andrey Platonov, ‘Dusha mira’, K rasnaya derevnya, 18 July 1920, reprinted in Andrey Platonov, C liu t 'e p ra vd y (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1990), 66-9; ‘Budushchii oktyabr"’, V oronezhskaya kom m una, 9 Nov. 1920, reprinted in C liu t 'e

p ra vd y (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1990), 117—20.22. Platonov, ‘Dusha mira’, 67.23. Platonov, ‘Budushchii oktyabr"’, 1 18.24. Ibid.25. Jacques Catteau, ‘De la metaphorique des utopies dans la litterature russe et de

son traitement chez Andrej Platonov’, R e v u e des etudes slaves 56 (1984), 39-50.26. Teskey, ‘Platonov Criticism’, 94.27. A. A. Kharitonov, ‘Sistema imen personazhei v poetike povesti “ Kotlovana” ’, in

N. V. Kornienko (ed.), ‘Strana filo sq fo v ’ A n d re y a P laton ova: problem y tvorchestva.

V yp u sh 2 (Moscow: Nasledie, 1995), 152—72.

24 Introduction

28. On Russian attitudes towards feminism in general and feminist literary criticism in particular, see: Rosalind Marsh, ‘Introduction: New Perspectives on Women and Gender in Russian Literature’ , in Rosalind Marsh (ed.), G e n d e r a nd R u ssia n

Literature: N e w Perspectives, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 1-37. On the history of Freud and the fate of Freudian psychoanalysis in Russia, see: Aleksandr Etkind, E ros n evo zm o zh n o go : R a z v it ie p sik h o a n a liza v R o s s ii

(Moscow: Gnosis, 1994); Martin A. Miller, F re u d a n d the B o ls h e v ik s :

Psychoanalysis in Im p eria l R u ss ia a n d the S o v iet U n io n (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998).

29. Boris Paramonov, ‘Chevengur i okrestnosti’, K o n tin en t 54 (1987), 333-72 (334). Several articles by Eric Naiman constitute the most significant body of scholarship on this issue. See: Eric Naiman, ‘Andrej Platonov and the Inadmissibility of Desire’, R u ssia n Literature 23 (1988), 319-65; ‘Historectomies: On the Metaphysics of Reproduction in a Utopian Age’, in Jane Costlow, Stephanie Sandler and Judith Vowles (eds.), S e x u a lity a nd the B o d y in R u ssia n

C u ltu re (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993), 255—76; ‘The Thematic Mythology of Andrej Platonov’, R u ssia n Literature 21 (1987), 189-216. More recently, Eliot Borenstein’s M e n W ithout W omen reads Platonov in the context of 1920s cultural and literary attitudes to masculinity.

30. Svetlana Semenova, ‘ “ Tainoe tainykh” Andreya Platonova (Eros i pol)’, in N. V. Kornienko and E. D. Shubina (eds.), A u d re y P lato n o v: M ir tvorchestva (Moscow: Sovremennyi pisateL, 1994), ,22_5 3 -

3 1. Anat Vernitski, ‘Women Work, Men Muse: Gender Roles in Platonov’s Articles and Short Stories’, E ssays in Poetics 27 (2002), 162—73.

32. Keith Livers, ‘Scatology and Eschatology: The Recovery of the Flesh in Andrei Platonovs H a p p y M o sco w ', S la v ic R e v ie w 59/1 (2000), 154-82.

33. Brodsky, ‘Catastrophes in the Air’, 286.34. Catriona Kelly, A H isto ry o f R u ssian W om ens W riting, 18 2 0 - 19 9 2 (Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1994), 4.35. Platonov’s status as a writer of utopian fiction presumably explains why the

editors of a reader designed for use in Russian schools decided to include two of Platonov’s works alongside that most famous of Russian literary utopias, Evgeny Zamyatin’s M y (W e). See: E. I. Zamyatin, U ezd n o e. M y and A. P. Platonov, K o tlo van . Y u ven il'n o e more (Moscow: Olimp, 1996). Other contributions to the study of Platonov’s utopianism are too numerous to mention.

36. Gary Saul Morson, T h e Bou ndaries of G e n re : D o sto e vsk y ’s Diary of a Writer a nd

the Traditions of L iterary U topia (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981), 101.37. Katerina Clark, T h e S o viet N o v e l: H isto ry as R itu a l, 3rd edn. (Bloomington and

Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2000), 15-24.38. Ibid. 16.39. The distinction between sex and gender is an important one, with sex referring

to the biological destiny of male and female, and gender as the set of social constructs elaborated on sexual difference. In one of her most famous remarks, Simone de Beauvoir states, ‘One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman. No biological, psychological, or economic fate determines the figure that the human female presents in society; it is civilization as a whole that produces this creature’. See: Simone de Beauvoir, L e D e u x ie m e S e x e (Paris: Gallimard, 1949), trans. H. M. Parshley as T h e Second S e x (London: Jonathan Cape, 1953), 273. For a

Introduction 25

succinct summary of such terminology and its importance in gender criticism, see: Toril Moi, ‘Feminist, Female, Feminine’, in Catherine Belsey and Jane Moore (eds.), T h e F em in ist R e a d e r: Essays in G e n d e r a n d the Politics o f L iterary

C riticism (London: Macmillan, 1989), 117-32.40. Helene Cixous, ‘Sorties’, trans. Ann Liddle, in Elaine Marks and Isabelle

de Courtivron (eds.), N e w French F em in ism s (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1981), 90-8.

41. Cited in Thomas Laqueur, M a k in g S e x : B o d y a n d G e n d e r fro m the G reeks to F reu d

(Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press, 1990), 30 (emphasis original).

42. Elizabeth A. Wood, T h e B a b a a n d the C o m rad e: G e n d e r a n d Politics in R evo lu tio n a ry

R u ss ia (Indianapolis and Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997), 1.43. Laura Engelstein, T h e K e y s to H a p p in ess: S e x a nd the Search f o r M o d e rn ity in F in -

d e -S iec le R u ss ia (Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell University Press, 1992); Peter Ulf Moller, Postlu de to the K re u tz e r So n a ta : Tolstoj a n d the D eb ate on S e x u a l M o ra lity

in R u ssia n Literature in the 18 9 0 s, trans. John Kendal (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988). The most well-documented instance of Platonov’s interest in fin -d e -s ie c le

thought is that of Nikolay Fedorov, whose rejection of sexuality and procreation in favour of the technological conquest of nature is an important influence on Platonov’s representation of women (at least in his early works). See: Eric Naiman, S e x in P u b lic : T h e Incarnation o f E a r ly S o v iet Ideology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 29-45; Svetlana Semenova, N ik o la i F ed o ro v :

Tvorchestvo z h iz n i (Moscow: Sovetskii pisateL, 1990); Ayleen Teskey, P lato n o v a n d

F y o d o ro v : T h e Influence o f C h ristia n P hilo so ph y on a S o v iet W riter (Amersham: Avebury, 1982).

44. Eve Levin, S e x a n d Society am ong the O rth o do x S la vs 1 10 0 —170 0 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989).

45. Adele Marie Barker, T h e M o th e r S y n d ro m e in the R u ss ia n F o lk Im agination

(Columbus: Slavica, 1986); Joanna Hubbs, M o th er R u s s ia : T h e F e m in in e M y th in

R u ssia n C u ltu re (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1988); Catriona Kelly, ‘A Stick with Two Ends, or, Misogyny in Popular Culture: A Case Study of the Puppet Text “ Petrushka” ’, in Jane Costlow, Stephanie Sandler and Judith Vowles (eds.), S e x u a lity a n d the B o d y in R u ssia n C u ltu re (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993), 73-96.

46. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, B etw een M e n : E n g lish Literature a nd M a le H om osocial

D esire (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985); E pistem ology o f the C lo set

(Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1994).47. Sedgwick, B etw een M e n , 148. Borenstein, M e n W ith o u t W om en, 191-263; Paramonov, ‘Chevengur i

okrestnosti’.49. Luce Irigaray, ‘Des marchandises entre elles’, in C e sexe q u i n yen est p as un (Paris:

Minuit, 1977), trans. Claudia Reeder as ‘When the Goods Get Together’, in Elaine Marks and Isabelle de Courtivron (eds.), N e w French F em in ism s (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1981), 107-10 (107).

50. Ibid. 107.51. Freud’s first enunciation of this crisis occurs in T h e Interpretation o f D ream s of

1900, where he offers his famous reading of Sophocles’ play O ed ip u s R e x . Freud further elaborated his theories in later works, most notably in the 1905 essay

26 Introduction

Infantile S e x u a lity , lecture 21 (‘The Development of the Libido and the Sexual Organisations’) from the Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1915— 17), T h e E g o

a n d the Id (1923), T h e D issolution o f the O ed ip u s C o m p le x (1924) and F em a le

S e x u a lity (1931). See: Sigmund Freud, ‘The Interpretation of Dreams’, in T h e

P engu in F reu d L ib ra ry , trans. and ed. James Strachey and others, 15 vols. (Harmondsworth: Penguin 1991), iv. 31-783 (363-5); ‘The Development of the Libido and the Sexual Organisations’, i. 362-82 (372-82); ‘Three Essays on Sexuality’, vii. 31-169 (88-126); ‘The Ego and the Id’, xi. 339-407 (367-79); ‘The Dissolution of the Oedipus Complex’, vii. 313-22; ‘Female Sexuality’, vii. 367-92.

52. Christopher Lasch, T h e M in im a l S e lf: Psychic S u rv iva l in Troubled T im es (London: Picador, 1985), 163.

53. Jacques Lacan, ‘The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience’, in Ecrits: A Selection, trans. Alan Sheridan (London: Tavistock, 1977), 1-7. For a helpful summary of Lacan’s ideas on the mirror stage, see: Malcolm Bowie, Lacan (London: Fontana, 1991), 21—6.

54. According to Lacan, the child’s relationship to the world is marked ‘by a certain dehiscence at the heart of the organism, a primordial Discord betrayed by the signs of uneasiness and motor unco-ordination of the neo-natal months. The objective notion of the anatomical incompleteness of the pyramidal system and likewise the presence of certain humoral residues of the maternal organism confirm the view I have formulated as the fact of a real specific prem atu rity o f birth in man’ (Lacan, ‘The Mirror Stage’, 4, emphasis original). Lacan’s assertion that the pre-Oedipal state is an extension of gestation has its roots in Freud: ‘there is much more continuity between intra-uterine life and earliest infancy than the impressive caesura of the act of birth would have us believe. What happens is that the child’s biological situation as a foetus is replaced for it by a psychical object-relation to its mother.’ See: Sigmund Freud, ‘Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety’, in T h e P en gu in F reu d L ib ra ry , trans. and ed. James Strachey and others, 15 vols. (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1991), x. 227-333 (295).

55. Lacan, ‘The Mirror Stage’, 4.56. Juliet Mitchell, Psychoanalysis a n d F em in ism (London: Allen Lane, 1974), 4°-57. Jacqueline Rose, ‘Introduction—II’, in Jacques Lacan, F em in in e S e x u a lity : Ja cqu es

Lacan a n d the Ecole Freu d ien ne, ed. Juliet Mitchell and Jacqueline Rose (London: Macmillan, 1982), 27—57 (38).

58. Jacques Lacan, ‘The Signification of the Phallus’, in Ecrits: A Selection, trans. Alan Sheridan (London: Tavistock, 1977), 281-91 (285). For a summary of the role of the phallus, see: Bowie, Lacan, 122—57.

59. On the nom du pere, see: Lacan, ‘The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis’, in Ecrits: A Selection, trans. Alan Sheridan (London: Tavistock, 1 9 7 7), 30-113.

60. Freud himself realized that his normative use of language was more appropriate to the male child. The first clear statement of this occurs in his 1925 essay, ‘Some Psychical Consequences of the Anatomical Distinction between the Sexes’. It was to be developed more systematically in two further essays (‘Female Sexuality’, and ‘Femininity’), dating from 1931 and 1933 respectively. See: Sigmund Freud, ‘Some Psychical Consequences of the Anatomical Distinction between the Sexes’, in T h e P en gu in F reu d L ib ra ry , trans. and ed. James Strachey

Introduction 27

and others, 15 vols. (Harmondsworth: Penguin 1991) vii. 323-43; ‘Female Sexuality’, vii. 367-92; ‘Femininity’, ii. 145-69. For a discussion of the applicability of Freud to female subjects, see; Mitchell, Psychoanalysis a n d

F em in ism , 5-131 and 305—55. On Lacan and femininity, see: Elizabeth Grosz, Ja cqu es L a ca n : A F em in ist Introduction (London: Routledge, 1990).

61. Rose, ‘Introduction-II’, 32.62. Ibid. 47.63. Lacquer, M a k in g S e x , 233-43.64. Grosz, Ja cqu es L a ca n , 116.65. Luce Irigaray, Speculum de Vautre fem m e (Paris: Minuit, 1974), trans. Gillian C.

Gill as Speculum o f the O th er W om an (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985), 133-

66. On time in utopia see: David M. Bethea, T h e S h a p e o f A p o ca lyp se in M o dern

R u ssia n Fiction (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989), particularly 145—85; Hallie A. White, ‘Time out of Line: Sequence and Plot in Platonov’s C h e v e n g u r , S la vo n ic a n d E a st E u ropean Jo u r n a l 42/1 (1998), 102-17.

67. Naiman, S e x in P u blic, 13 (emphasis original).68. Langerak, A u d r e y P lato n o v, 24.69. Brodsky, ‘Catastrophes in the Air’ , 280. For a qualification of Platonov’s

modernism, see: Seifrid, A u d re y P lato n o v, 17-18.70. Naiman, ‘Historectomies’, 253.71. Julia Kristeva, L a R evo lu tio n du langage poetique (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1974),

trans. Margaret Waller as R evo lu tio n in Poetic L a ngu age (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984).

72. Judith Still, ‘A Feminine Economy: Some Preliminary Thoughts’, in Mary Eagleton (ed.), F em in ist L iterary T h eo ry : A R e a d e r, 2nd edn. (Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1996), 325-6 (325).

73. Catherine Belsey and Jane Moore, introduction: The Story So Far’, in Catherine Belsey and Jane Moore (eds.), T h e F em in ist R e a d e r: Essays in G e n d e r

a nd the Politics o f L iterary C riticism (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan, 1989) 1-20 (14).

74. Ibid. 14.75. Hodel, Erlebte R e d e , 176. Robert Chandler, introduction’, in Platonov, T h e R etu rn a nd O th er Stories, trans.

Robert and Elizabeth Chandler and Angela Livingstone (London: Harvill, 1999), pp. vii-xxii (p. xxi).

77. Borenstein, M e n w ithout W om en, 191—224; Langerak, A u d re y P latonov, 42-72; L. Shubin, ‘Ob Andree Platonove’, in Shubin, P o isk i sm ysla otdeTnqgo i obshchego

sushchestvovaniya (Moscow: Sovetskii pisateL, 1987), 16-268 (81—155).78. Much of the historical context discussed here is derived from the relevant

sections of Catriona Kelly and David Shepherd (eds.), C onstructing R u ssian

C u ltu re in the A g e o f R ev o lu tio n : 1 8 8 1 - 1 9 4 0 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998) and Catriona Kelly and David Shepherd (eds.), R u ssia n C u ltu ra l S tu d ies : A n

Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). Greater detail and further bibliographical information can naturally be found in the individual chapters of this book.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Works by Andrey Platonov‘Alterke’ , Druzhnye rebyata 2 (1940), reprinted in Sobratiie sochinenii v trekh

tomakh (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984-5), ii. 16 0 -7 1.‘Anna Akhmatova’ , in Deti'poezii (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel', 1966), 2 7 1-4 ,

reprinted in Vozvrashchenie (Moscow: Molodaya gvardiya, 1989), 192-7.‘Antiseksus’ , Russian Literature 9 (1981), 2 8 1-9 5 .Bessmertnyi podvig moryakov: Fil'chenko, Krasnosel'sky, Tsibul'ko, Odintsov;

Parshiti (Moscow: Voenno-morskoe izdatel'stvo N K V M F Soyuza S SS R ,

1943)-‘Bronya’ , Znamya 10 (1942), reprinted in Odukhotvorennye lyudi: rasskazy 0

voitie (Moscow: Pravda, 1986), 17 -27 .Brotiya (Moscow: Voenno-morskoe izdatel'stvo N K V M F Soyuza S S S R ,

1943)-‘Budushchii oktyabr'’ , Voronezhskaya kommuna, 9 Novem ber 1920, reprinted

in Chut'e pravdy (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1990), 1 17-20 .Chevengur (Paris: Y M C A -Press, 1972).Chevengur, trans. Anthony Olcott (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1978).‘Chevengur’ , Druzhba narodov 3 (1988), 9 6 -149 and 4 (1988), 4 3 -15 6 ,

reprinted in Chevengur: Roman i povesti (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel', 1989), 5-366.

Chevengur (Moscow: Vysshaya shkola, 1991).Chut'e pravdy (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1990).‘Dar zhizni’ , Domovoi 4 (1994), 34 -4 1.‘Derevo R o d in y ’ , Novyi mir 2 -3 (1943), 78-82, reprinted in Odukhotvorennye

lyudi: rasskazy 0 voitie (Moscow: Pravda, 1986), 86-92.‘Devushka R o za ’ , in V storonu zakata solntsa (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel',

1945), 9 1-9 9 , reprinted in Izbrannye proizvedeniya v dvukh tomakh (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, 1978), ii. 283-8.

‘Dusha mira’ , Krasnaya derevnya, 18 Ju ly 1920, reprinted in Chut'e pravdy (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1990), 66-9.

‘Dzhan’ , Prostor 9 (1964).‘Dzhan’ , in Proza (Moscow: Slovo, 1999), 437-534 .‘Efirnyi trakt’ , in Fantastika 1967. Vypusk l-y i (Moscow: Molodaya gvardiya,

1968), 247-302, reprinted in Izbrannye proizvedeniya v dvukh tomakh

2o8 Bibliography

(Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, 1978), i. 127-97, and in Sobratiie sochinetiii v trekh tomakh (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984-5), i. 15 1-2 2 0 .

Epifanskie shlyuzy (Moscow: Molodaya gvardiya, 1927).‘Epifanskie shlyuzy’ , in Epifanskie shlyuzy (Moscow: Molodaya gvardiya,

1927), 3 -6 1 , reprinted in Sobratiie sochinetiii v trekh tomakh (Moscow: Sovet­skaya Rossiya, 1984-5), i. 2 2 1 - 5 1 .

‘Eshche mama’ , in Izbrannye rasskazy (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel', 1958), reprinted in Sobranie sochinetiii v trekh tomakh (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984-5), iii. 234-40.

The Foundation Pit, trans. R obert Chandler and Geoffrey Smith (London: Harvill, 1996).

‘Fro’ , Literaturnyi kritik 8 (1936), 129-45, and in Reka Potudan': Sbornik rasskazov (Moscow: Sovetskii pisateL, 1937), 79 -10 9 , reprinted in Izbrannoe (Moscow: Moskovskii rabochii, 1966), 5 13 -3 2 , and in Sobranie sochinenii v trekh tomakh (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984-5), ii. 128-48.

Happy Moscow, trans. R obert and Elizabeth Chandler (London: Harvill, 2001).

‘ IyuLskaya groza’ , Literaturnayagazeta, 30 September 1938, 4, and Oktyabr' 11 (1938), 12 4 -33 , reprinted in Sobranie sochinenii v trekh tomakh (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984-5), ii. 230-46.

‘ Iz pisem k zhene’ , in Sobranie sochinenii v trekh tomakh (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984-5), iii. 53 1-4 0 .

Izbrannoe (Moscow: Moskovskii rabochii, 1966).Izbrannye proizvedeniya v dvukh tomakh (M oscow: Khudozhestvennaya

literatura, 1978).Izbrannye rasskazy (Moscow: Sovetskii pisateL, 1958).‘Kotlovan’ , Student 1 3 - 14 (1969), 5 - 1 1 3 .Kotlovati (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1973).‘Kotlovan’ , Novyi mir 6 (1987), 5 0 - 12 3 , reprinted in Kotlovati. Yuvenil'noe

more (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, 1987), 4 - 1 14 .‘Kotlovan’ , in Vzyskanie pogibshikh: Povesti. Rasskazy. P'esa. Stat'i (Moscow:

Shkola-Press, 1995), 170 -2 8 1.Kotlovan: Tekst. Materialy tvorcheskoi istorii (St Petersburg: Nauka, 2000).‘Kratkoe izlozhenie temy kinostsenariya s uslovnym nazvaniem “ Sem 'ya

Ivanova” ’ , in N. V. Kornienko and E. D. Shubina (eds.), Andrey Platonov: Vospominaniya sovremennikov: Materialy k biografii (Moscow: Sovremennyi pisatel', 1994), 455-7-

‘Lunnaya bomba’ , Vsemirnyi sledopyt 12 (1926), 3 - 15 , reprinted in Sobratiie sochinetiii v trekh tomakh (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984-5), i. 4 1-5 9 .

‘Lyubov' k dal'nem u’ , 30 dnei 2 (1934), 6 9 -7 1, reprinted in Starik i starukha: Poteryannaya proza, ed. Fol'ker [Volker] Levin, Arbeiten und Texte zur Slavistik 33 (Munich: Otto Sagner, 1984), 153-6 .

Bibliography 209

‘Na zare tumannoi yunosti’ , in Sobranie sochitienii v trekh tomakh (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984-5), ii. 205-29 [originally published as ‘O l'g a ’]

‘O dukhotvorennye lyudi’ , in Izbrannye proizvedeniya v dvukh tomakh (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, 1978), ii. 197-228 [originally published as ‘Odushevlennye lyudi’].

Odukhotvorennye lyudi: ocherk ob uchasttiikakh oborotiy Sevastopolya (Moscow: Molodaya gvardiya, 1942).

Odukhotvorennye lyudi: rasskazy 0 voine (Moscow: Pravda, 1986).‘Odushevlennye lyudi’ , Znamya 11 (1942), reprinted as ‘Odukhotvorennye

lyudi’ in Izbrannye proizvedeniya v dvukh tomakh (M oscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, 1978), ii. 197-228.

‘O l'g a ’ , Novyi m iry (1938), 17 - 3 1 , reprinted as ‘Na zare tumannoi yunosti’ in Sobranie sochitienii v trekh tomakh (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984-5), ii. 205-29.

‘Pavel Korchagin’ , Literaturnyi kritik 1 o— 11 (1937), 2 4 1-5 3 , reprinted (with cuts) in Sobranie sochitienii v trekh tomakh (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984-5), ii. 363-76.

‘Peschanaya uchitel'nitsa’ , Literaturtiye sredy 21 (1927), 5-6, and in Epifanskie shlyuzy (Moscow: Molodaya guardiya, 1927), 17 1-8 4 , reprinted in Sobranie sochitienii v trekh tomakh (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984-5), i. 7 5 -8 1.

Pod nebesami Roditiy (Ufa: Bashgosizdat, 1942).‘Polotnyanaya rubakha’ , in SeVskaya tnolodezh' 6 (1962), reprinted in Sobranie

sochitienii v trekh tomakh (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984-5), iii. 1 10 - 15 .

The Portable Platonov, ed. R obert Chandler, Glas: N ew Russian W riting 20 (Birmingham: Glas, 1999).

‘Potomki solntsa’ , in Sobranie sochitienii v trekh tomakh (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984-5), i. 32-40 [originally published as ‘Satana mysli’ ].

Proza (Moscow: Slovo, 1999).‘Pushkin - nash tovarishch’ , Literaturnyi kritik 1 (1937), 4 6 -6 1, reprinted in

Vzyskanie pogibshikh: Povesti. Rasskazy. P'esa. Stat'i (Moscow: Shkola- Press, 1995), 609-23.

‘Rasskaz o mnogikh interesnykh veshchakh’ , Naslia gazeta, 12 Ju ly 19 2 3 - 19 August 1923, reprinted in Starik i starukha: Poteryannaya proza, ed. Fol'ker [Volker] Levin, Arbeiten und Texte zur Slavistik 33 (Munich: Otto Sagner, 1984), 43-92.

Rasskazy 0 Rodine (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo khudozhestvennoi literatury, 1943).

Reka Potudan': Sbornik rasskazov (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel', 1937).Reka Potudan', ed. M arilyn M into (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1995).‘R eka Potudan'’ , in Reka Potudan': Sbortiik rasskazov (Moscow: Sovetskii

pisatel', 1937), 3-42 , reprinted in Sobranie sochitienii v trekh tomakh (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984-5), ii. 178-204.

2io Bibliography

The Return and Other Stories, trans. Robert and Elizabeth Chandler and Angela Livingstone (London: Harvill, 1999).

‘Satana mysli (Fantaziya)’ , Put' Kommutiizma 2 (1922), 30-7, reprinted as ‘Potomki solntsa’ in Sohratiie sochinenii v trekh tomakh (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984-5), i. 32-40.

‘Schastlivaya M oskva’ , Novyi m iry (1991), 9—76.‘Schastlivaya M oskva’ , in N. V. Kornienko (ed.), ‘Stratia filosqfov' Andreya

Platonova: prohlemy tvorchestva. Vypusk 3 (Moscow: Nasledie, 1999), 5 - 10 5 .‘Schast'e vblizi cheloveka’ , Ogonek 15 (1947).‘Sed 'm oi chelovek’ , Prostor 5 (1966), reprinted in Izhrannye proizvedeniya v

dvukh tomakh (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, 1978), ii. 240-9.‘Semeistvo’ , Moskva 1 (1994), 9 1-7 .‘Sem yon’ , Krasnaya tiov' 11 (1936), reprinted in Sohratiie sochinenii v trekh

tomakh (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984-5), ii. 149-59.‘Sem 'ya Ivanova’ , Novyi mir 10— 11 (1946), 9 7 -10 8 , reprinted as ‘Vozvrash-

chenie’ in Vzyskanie pogibshikh: Povesti. Rasskazy. P'esa. Stat'i (Moscow: Shkola-Press, 1995), 5 16 -38 .

‘Sem 'ya Ivanova: Stsenarii’ , Sovetskaya literatura 10 (1990), 7 8 -12 2 .Sohratiie sochinenii v pyati tomakh (Moscow: Informpechat', 19 9 8 -) .Sohratiie sochinenii v trekh tomakh (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984-5).Soldatskoe serdtse (Moscow-Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatel'stvo Detskoi

Literatury Narkomprosa R S F S R , 1946).Soul, trans. R obert and Elizabeth Chandler and Olga Meerson (London:

Harvill, 2003)‘Starik i starukha’ , Ztiamya 5 (1937), 154-9, reprinted in Starik i starukha

Poteryannaya proza, ed. Fol'ker [Volker] Levin, Arbeiten und Texte zur Slavistik 33 (Munich: Otto Sagner, 1984), 176-82.

Starik i starukha: Poteryannaya proza, ed. Fol'ker [Volker] Levin, Arbeiten und Texte zur Slavistik 33 (Munich: Otto Sagner, 1984).

‘Strakh soldata’ , Don 5 (1967), 170 -2 .‘Takyr’ , in Aiding-Gyunler: Al'manakh k desyatiletiyu Turkmenistana, 1924-1934

(Moscow: Izdanie yubileinoi komissii T sIK -T S S R , 1934), 47-59, re­printed in Sohratiie sochinenii v trekh tomakh (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984-5), i. 129-48.

‘Tretii syn’ , Krasnaya nov' 1 (1936), reprinted in Sohratiie sochinenii v trekh tomakh (Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1984-5), ii. 172 -7 .

V storotiu zakata solntsa (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel', 1945).‘Veter-khlebopashets’ , Druzhnye rebyata 4 (1944), reprinted in Izhrannye

proizvedeniya v dvukh tomakh (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, 1978), ii. 279-82.

Vozvrashchetiie (Moscow: Molodaya gvardiya, 1989).‘Vozvrashchenie’ , in Vzyskanie pogibshikh: Povesti. Rasskazy. P'esa. Stat'i

(Moscow: Shkola-Press, 1995), 5 16 -38 [originally published as ‘Sem 'ya Ivanova’].

Bibliography 21 i

‘Vozvrashchenie na rodinu’ , Literaturnaya gazeta, 5 August 1938, 5.‘Vozrazhenie bez samozashchity’ , Literaturnaya gazeta, 20 Decem ber 1937, 6,

reprinted in N. V. Kornienko and E. D. Shubina (eds.), Audrey Platonov: Vospominaniya sovremennikov: Materialy k biografii (Moscow: Sovremennyi pisatel', 1994), 4 14 - 16 .

Vzyskanie pogibshikh: Povesti. Rasskazy. P'esa. Stat'i (Moscow: Shkola-Press,

1995) •‘Yushka’ , R T 17 (1966), 14 -5 , reprinted in Vzyskanie pogibshikh: Povesti.

Rasskazy. P'esa. Stat'i (Moscow: Shkola-Press, 1995), 4 75 -8 1.‘Yuvenil'noe more’ , Ekho 4 (1979), 1 18 -7 3 .‘Yuvenil'noe m ore’ , Znamya 6 (1986), 49-98, reprinted in Chevetigur: roman

i povesti (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel', 1989), 5 3 8 -6 11 .Zapisnye ktiizhki: Materialy k biografii (Moscow: Nasledie, 2000).‘Zhivya glavnoi zhizn'yu (A. Platonov v pis’makh k zhene, dokumentakh i

ocherkakh)’ , Volga 9 (1975), 160-78.

Secondary SourcesAiding-Gyunler: AVmanakh k desyatiletiyu Turkmenistana, IQ24-1934 (Moscow:

Izdanie yubileinoi komissii T sIK -T S S R , 1934).Anninsky, L., ‘Vostok i zapad v tvorchestve Andreya Platonova’ , Prostor 1

(1968), 89-97.Atkinson, Dorothy, Alexander Dallin, and Gail Warshofsky Lapidus

(eds.), Women in Russia (Stanford, C A : Stanford University Press, 1977).Averbakh, L., ‘O tselostnykh masshtabakh i chastnykh M akarakh’, Na litera-

turnom postu 2 1 -2 2 (1929) and Oktyabr' 11 (1929), reprinted in N . V. Korn­ienko and E. D. Shubina (eds.), Audrey Platonov: Vospominaniy sovremennikov: Materialy k biografii (Moscow: Sovremennyi pisatel’ , 1994), 256-67.

Bakhtin, Mikhail, Tvorchestvo Fransua Rable i narodnaya kul'tura sredtieve- koviya i Renessansa (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, 1965), trans. Helene Iswolsky as Rabelais and his World (Cambridge, M A , and London: M IT Press, 1968).

Barker, Adele Marie, The Mother Syndrome in the Russian Folk Imagination (Columbus: Slavica, 1986).

Barsht, K. A ., Khudozhestvennaya antropologiya Andreya Platonova (Voronezh: Izdatel'stvo Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo uni- versiteta, 2001).

-------Poetika prozy Andreya Platonova (St Petersburg: Filologicheskii fakul'tetSankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2000).

de Beauvoir, Simone, be Deuxieme Sexe (Paris: Gallimard, 1949), trans. H. M . Parshley as The Second Sex (London: Jonathan Cape, 1953).

Belsey, Catherine, and Jane Moore (eds.), The Feminist Reader: Essays in Gender and the Politics of Literary Criticism (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan, 1989).

2i2 B ibliography

-------‘ Introduction: The Story So Far’ , in Catherine Belsey and Jane M oore(eds.), The Feminist Reader: Essays in Gender and the Politics of Literary Criticism (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan, 1989), 1-20 .

Berger, John, Ways of Seeing (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972).Berger-Bugel, Pia-Susan, Andrej Platonov: Der Roman (Scastlivaja Moskva’

im Kontext seines Schaffens und seiner Philosophic, Arbeiten und Texte zur Slavistik 65 (Munich: Otto Sagner, 1999).

Bethea, David M ., The Shape of Apocalypse in Modern Russian Fiction (Princeton, N J: Princeton University Press, 1989).

Bocharov, S., “ ‘Veshchestvo sushchestvovaniya” (Vyrazhenie v proze)’ , in Prohlemy khudozhestventioi for my sotsialisticheskogo realizma, vol. 2 (Moscow: Nauka, 1971), 3 10 -50 , reprinted in N. V. Kornienko and E. D. Shubina (eds.), Andrey Platonov: M ir tvorchestva (Moscow: Sovremennyi pisatel', 1994), 10—46.

Bodin, Per-Arne, T h e Promised Land-Desired and Lost: An Analysis o f Andrej Platonovs Short Story “ D zan” ’ , Scando-Slavica 37 (1991), 5-24.

Borenstein, Eliot, Men Without Women: Masculinity and Revolution in Russian Fiction, ig i7~ ig2g (Durham, N C , and London: Duke University Press, 2000).

Boswell, John, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago and London: Chicago University Press, 1980).

Bowie, Malcolm, Lacan (London: Fontana, 1991).Bowlt, John E. and Olga Matich (eds.), Laboratory of Dreams: The Russiati

Avant-Garde and Cultural Experiment (Stanford, C A : Stanford University Press, 1996).

Boym, Svetlana, Common Places: Mythologies of Everyday Life in Russia (Cambridge, M A , and London: Harvard University Press, 1994).

Brodsky, Joseph, ‘Catastrophes in the A ir’ , in Less Than One: Selected Essays (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1986), 268-303.

-------foreword to Andrey Platonov, Kotlovati (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1973), 5-6,reprinted in N. V. Kornienko and E. D. Shubina (eds.), Andrey Platonov: Mir tvorchestva (Moscow: Sovremennyi pisateL, 1994), 154-6.

Brown, Peter, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (London and Boston: Faber and Faber, 1989).

Buckley, Mary, Women and Ideology in the Soviet Union (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1989).

Bulgakov, Mikhail, ‘ Sobach'e serdtse’ , in Sobratiie sochinenii v pyati tomakh (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, 1989-90), ii. 119 -208 .

Bullock, Philip Ross, ‘A M odern Ahasuerus: Jewish Themes in the Works o f Andrei Platonov’ , Essays in Poetics 27 (2002), 139 -6 1.

-------‘The Musical Imagination o f Andrei Platonov’ , Slavonica 10/1 (2004),4 1-6 0 .

Bibliography 213

Catteau, Jacques, ‘D e la metaphorique des utopies dans la litterature russe et de son traitement chez Andrej Platonov’ , Revue des etudes slaves 56 (1984), 39- 50.

C halmaev, V iktor, Audrey Platonov: k sokrovennomu cheloveku (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel', 1989).

Cixous, Helene, ‘Sorties’ , trans. Ann Liddle, in Elaine Marks and Isabelle de Courtivron (eds.), New French Feminisms (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1981), 90-8.

C lark, Katerina, The Soviet Novel: History as Ritual, 3rd edn. (Bloom ing­ton and Indianopolis: Indiana University Press, 2000).

C lark, Katerina, and Michael Holquist, Mikhail Bakhtin (Cambridge, M A , and London: Harvard University Press, 1984).

C lements, Barbara Evans, ‘Later Developments: Trends in Soviet W omen’s History, 1930 to the Present’ , in Barbara Evans Clements, Barbara Alpern Engel and Christine D. Worobec (eds.), Russia's Women: Accommodation, Resistance, Transformation (Berkeley, Los Angeles and Oxford: University o f California Press, 1991), 267-78.

C lements, Barbara Evans, Barbara Alpern Engel and C hristine D. Worobec (eds.), Russia's Women: Accommodation, Resistance, Transformation (Berkeley, Los Angeles and Oxford: University o f California Press, 1991).

Costlow, Jane, Stephanie Sandler and J udith Vowles (eds.), Sexuality and the Body in Russian Culture (Stanford, C A : Stanford University Press,

1993).Dante, The Divine Comedy, trans. Dorothy L. Sayers, 3 vols. (Harmonds-

worth: Penguin, 1949-62).Dobrenko, Evgeny, The Making of the State Reader: Social and Aesthetic

Contexts of the Reception of Soviet Literature (Stanford, C A : Stanford U n i­versity Press, 1997).

Drubek-Meyer, Natascha, review o f Andrey Platonov, ‘Schastlivaya M oskva’ , Wiener Slawistischer Almanack 30 (1992), 329-33.

Dunham, Vera, In Stalin's Time: Middleclass Values in Soviet Fiction (Cam­bridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1976).

Durfee, Thea Margaret, ‘ Cement and How the Steel Was Tempered: Variations on the N ew Soviet Woman’ , in Sona Stephan Hoisington (ed.), A Plot of Her Oum: The Female Protagonist in Russian Literature (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1995), 8 9 - 10 1.

Eagleton, Mary (ed.), Feminist Literary Theory: A Reader, 2nd edn. (Oxford and Cambridge, M A : Blackwell, 1996).

Engelstein, Laura, The Keys to Happiness: Sex and the Search for Modernity in Fin-de-Siecle Russia (Ithaca, N Y, and London: Cornell University Press, 1992).

2 i4 Bibliography

Ermilov, V. V., ‘Klevetnicheskii rasskaz A. Platonova’ , Literaturnayagazeta, 4 January 1947, 4, reprinted in N. V. Kornienko and E. D. Shubina (eds.), Audrey Platonov: Vospominaniya sovremennikov: Materialy k biografii (Moscow: Sovremennyi pisatel', 1994), 467-73.

Etkind, Aleksandr, Eros nevozmozhnogo: Razvitie psikhoanaliza v Rossii (Moscow: Gnosis, 1994).

Fadeev, A., ‘Ob odnoi kulatskoi khronike’ , Krasnaya nov' 5/6 (1931), reprinted in N. V. Kornienko and E. D. Shubina (eds.), Audrey Platonov: Vospominaniya sovremennikov: Materialy k biografii (Moscow: Sovremennyi pisatel', 1994), 268-78.

Fitzpatrick, Sheila, The Cultural Front: Power and Culture in Revolutionary Russia (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1992).

------- Stalin’s Peasants: Resistance and Survival in the Russian Village afterCollectivization (N ew York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).

Freud, Sigmund, The Penguin Freud Library, trans. and ed. by James Strachey and others, 15 vols. (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1991).

Garrard, John and Carol Garrard, The Bones of Berdichev: The Life and Fate of Vasily Grossman (N ew York: Free Press, 1996).

-------Inside the Soviet Writers’ Union (N ew York: Free Press, 1990).Geller, Mikhail, Audrey Platonov v poiskakh schast'ya (Paris: Y M C A -Press,

1982).Gor'ky i sovetskie pisateli: neizdannaya perepiska, Literaturnoe Nasledstvo 70

(Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii nauk S S S R , 1963).Grosz, Elizabeth, Jacques Lacan: A Feminist Introduction (London: R o u t-

ledge, 1990).Groys, Boris, ‘The Birth o f Socialist Realism from the Spirit o f the Russian

Avant-Garde’ , in Hans Gunther (ed.), The Culture of the Stalin Period (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan, 1990), 122-48.

-------Gesamtkunstwerk Stalin (Munich and Vienna: Carl Hanser, 1988), trans.Charles Rougle as The Total Art of Stalinism: Avant-Garde, Aesthetic Dictatorship, and Beyond (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992).

Gubner, Fedor, ‘Vasily Grossman i Andrey Platonov’ , Zdes' i teper' 2 (1992), 39- 49 .

GOnther, Hans (ed.), The Culture of the Stalin Period (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan, 1990).

-------‘ “ Stalinskie sokoly” (Analiz mifa 30-kh godov)’ , Voprosy literatury 1 1/2(1991), 12 2 -4 1.

Gurvich, A ., ‘Andrey Platonov’ , Krasnaya N o v' 10 (1937), reprinted in N. V. Kornienko and E. D. Shubina (eds.), Andrey Platonov: Vospominaniya sovremennikov: Materialy k biografii (Moscow: Sovremennyi pisatel', 1994), 358 -4 12 .

------- ‘Otvet tov. Platonovu’ , Literaturnaya gazeta, 26 December 1937, 6,reprinted in N. V. Kornienko and E. D. Shubina (eds.), Andrey Platonov:

Bibliography 215

Vospominaniya sovremennikov: Materialy k biografti (Moscow: Sovremennyi pisateL, 1994), 4 16 -8

Hampson, Daphne, Feminism and Theology (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990).Heldt, Barbara, ‘Gynoglasnost: W riting the Feminine’ , in M ary Buckley

(ed.), Perestroika and Soviet Women (Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1992), 160-75.

-------‘M en W ho Give Birth: A Feminist Perspective on Russian Literature’ ,in Catriona Kelly, M ichael M akin and David Shepherd (eds.), Discontinuous Discourses in Modern Russian Literature (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan, 1989), 157-6 7 .

------- Terrible Perfection: Women and Russian Literature (Bloomington andIndiana: Indiana University Press, 1987).

Hodel, Robert, Erlebte Rede bei Andrej Platonov: von V zvezdnoj pustyne bis Cevengur, Slavische Literaturen: Texte und Abhandlungen 23 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2001).

Hodel, Robert, and Jan Peter Locher (eds.), Sprache und Erzahlung bei Andrej Platonov, Slavica Helvetica 58 (Berne: Peter Lang, 1998).

Hodgson, Katherine, Written with the Bayonet: Soviet Russian Poetry of World War Two (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1996).

Hoisington, Sona Stephan (ed.), A Plot of Her Own: The Female Protagonist in Russian Literature (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1995).

Hubbs, Joanna, Mother Russia: The Feminine Myth in Russian Culture (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1988).

Irigaray, Luce, ‘Des marchandises entre elles’ , in Ce sexe qui n ’en est pas un (Paris: Minuit, 1977), trans. Claudia Reeder as ‘W hen the Goods Get Together’ , in Elaine Marks and Isabelle de Courtivron (eds.), New French Feminisms (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1981), 10 7 -10 .

-------Speculum de V autre femme (Paris: Minuit, 1974), trans. Gillian C . Gill asSpeculum of the Other Woman (Ithaca, N Y : Cornell University Press, 1985).

J efferson, Ann, ‘Bodymatters: Self and Other in Bakhtin, Sartre and Barthes’ , in Ken Hirshkop and David Shepherd (eds.), Bakhtin and Cultural Theory (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1989), 152 -7 7 .

Jones, James, The Thin Red Line (London: Collins, 1963).Kaplan, E. Anne, Women and Film: Both Sides of the Camera (N ew York and

London: Methuen, 1983).Kelly, Catriona, A History of Russian Women's Writing, i820-igg2 (Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1994).------ ‘A Stick with Two Ends, or, M isogyny in Popular Culture: A Case

Study o f the Puppet Text “ Petrushka” ’ , in Jane Costlow, Stephanie Sandler and Judith Vowles (eds.), Sexuality and the Body in Russian Culture (Stanford, C A : Stanford University Press, 1993), 73-96.

Kelly, Catriona, and David Shepherd (eds.), Constructing Russian Culture in the Age of Revolution: 18 8 1-^ 4 0 (Oxford: O xford University Press, 1998).

2 i 6 B i b l i o g r a p h y

------- Russian Cultural Studies: A n Introduction (Oxford: O xford UniversityPress, 1998).

Kermode, Frank, The Sense of an Ending: Studies in the Theory of Fiction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967).

Kharitonov, A. A ., ‘Arkhitektonika povesti A. Platonova “ Kotlovan” ’ , in Tvorchestvo Andreya Platonova (Saint Petersburg: Nauka, 1995), 70-90.

-------‘Sistema imen personazhei v poetike povesti “ Kotlovana” ’ , in N. V.Kornienko (ed.), 'Strana filosofov' Andreya Platonova. Vypusk 2 (Moscow: Nasledie, 1995), 152 -72 .

Kornienko, N. V., ‘ Istoriya teksta i biografiya A. P. Platonova (1926-1946)’ , Zdes' i teper'A (1993), 1-320 .

----- ‘... Na krayu sobstvennogo bezmolviya’, commentary to Andrey Plato­nov, ‘Schastlivaya Moskva’, Novyi mir 9 (1991), 59-74.

-------‘Povest' o detstve: Opyt kommentariya k chernovym nabroskam A.Platonova’ , in T. A. Nikonova (ed.), Andrey Platonov: Issledovaniya i materialy (Voronezh: Izdatel'stvo voronezhskogo universiteta, 1993), 167-80.

-------(ed.), ' Strana filosofov’ Andreya Platonova: problemy tvorchestva (Moscow:Nasledie, 1993).

-------(ed.), ‘Strana filosofov’ Andreya Platonova: problemy tvorchestva. Vypusk 2(Moscow: Nasledie, 1995).

-------(ed.), ‘Strana filosofov’ Andreya Platonova: problemy tvorchestva. Vypusk 3(Moscow: Nasledie, 1999).

-------(ed.), ‘Strana filosofov’ Andreya Platonova: problemy tvorchestva. Vypusk 4(Moscow: Nasledie, 2000).

-------(ed.), ‘Strana filosofov’ Andreya Platonova: problemy tvorchestva. Vypusk 3(Moscow: IM LI R A N , 2003).

Kornienko, N. V., and E. D. Shubina (eds.), Andrey Platonov: Mir tvorchestva (Moscow: Sovremennyi pisatel’ , 1994).

-------(eds.), Andrey Platonov: Vospominaniya sovremennikov: Materialy k biografii(Moscow: Sovremennyi pisatel', 1994).

Kostov, Kheli [Heli], Mifopoetika Andreya Platonova v romane Schastlivaya Moskva, Slavica Helsingiensia 19 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2000) [available at http ://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hum /slavi/vk/ kostov/].

Kristeva, Julia, ‘Oscillation du “ pouvoir” au “ refus” ’ , interview with Xaviere Gauthier, Tel quel, Summer 1974, trans. M arilyn August in Elaine Marks and Isabelle de Courtivron (eds.), New French Feminisms (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1981), 165-7 .

-------Pouvoirs de Vhorreur (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1980), trans. LeonRoudiez as Powers of Horror (N ew York: Columbia University Press, 1982).

-------La Revolution du langage poetique (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1974), trans.Margaret Waller as Revolution in Poetic Language (N ew York: Columbia University Press, 1984).

-------‘Stabat M ater’ , in Histoires d ’amour (Paris: Denoel, 1983), trans. Leon S.

B ibliography 217

Roudiez in The Kristeva Reader, ed. Toril M oi (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), 16 1-86 .

Lacan, Jacques, Ecrits: A Selection, trans. Alan Sheridan (London: Tavistock, 1977).

-------Feminine Sexuality: Jacques Lacan and the Ecole Freudienne, ed. JulietMitchell and Jacqueline R ose (London: Macmillan, 1982).

Langerak, Thomas, Andrey Platonov: materialy dlya biografii i8gg-ig2ggg. (Amsterdam: Pegasus, 1995).

Lapidus, Gail Warshofsky, ‘Sexual Equality in Soviet Policy’ , in Dorothy Atkinson, Alexander Dallin, and Gail Warshofsky Lapidus (eds.), Women in Russia (Stanford, C A : Stanford University Press, 1977), 1 15 -3 8 .

Laqueur, T homas, Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge, M A , and London: Harvard University Press, 1990).

Lasch, C hristopher, The Minimal Self: Psychic Survival in Troubled Times (London: Picador, 1985).

Lasunsky, Oleg, ZhiteV rodnogo goroda: Voronezhskie gody Andreya Platonov, i8gg-ig26 (Voronezh: IzdateLstvo Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo uni- versiteta, 1999).

Levin, Eve, Sex and Society among the Orthodox Slavs 1100-1700 (Ithaca, N Y : Cornell University Press, 1989).

Levin, V., ‘Svyaz' vremen: Beseda s kritikom Vladimirom Erm ilovym ’ , Literaturnaya gazeta, 17 October 1964, 3.

Lewis, C. S., The Allegory o f Love: A Study in Medieval Tradition (Oxford and N ew York: O xford University Press, 1936).

Livers, Keith, ‘Scatology and Eschatology: The R ecovery o f the Flesh in Andrei Platonovs Happy Moscow’ , Slavic Review 59/1 (2000), 154-82.

Livingstone, Angela, ‘Danger and Deliverance: R eading Andrei Plato­nov’ , Slavonic and East European Review , 80/3 (2002), 4 0 1- 16 .

-------‘M otiv vozvrashcheniya v rasskaze A. Platonova “ Vozvrashchenie” ’ , inTvorchestvo Andreya Platonova: Issledovaniya i materialy. Kniga 2 (Saint Petersburg: Nauka, 2000), 1 1 3 - 16 .

------ ‘The Pit and the Tower: Andrei Platonov’s Prose Style’ , Essays in Poetics

22 (1997), 139- 57*------- (ed.), Essays in Poetics, 26 (2001): A Hundred Years of Andrei Platonov

(Keele: Keele Students Union Press, 2001).------- (ed.), Essays in Poetics, 27 (2002): A Hundred Years of Andrei Platonov,

(Keele: Keele Students Union Press, 2002).Malygina, N. M ., Khudozhestvennyi mir Andreya Platonova (Moscow:

Moskovskii pedagogicheskii universitet, 1995).Marks, Elaine, and Isabelle de Courtivron (eds.), New French Feminisms

(Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1981).Marsh, Rosalind (ed.), Gender and Russian Literature: New Perspectives

(Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1996).-------‘N ew Perspectives on Women and Gender in Russian Literature’ , in

2 i 8 B i b l i o g r a p h y

Rosalind Marsh (ed.), Gender and Russian Literature: New Perspectives (Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press, 1996).

Mathewson, Rufus W., The Positive Hero in Russian Literature, 2nd edn. (Stanford, C A : Stanford University Press, 1975).

Meerson, Ol'ga, ‘Andrei Platonovs Re-fam iliarization: The Perils and Potencies o f Perceptive Inertia’ , Essays in Poetics 26 (2001), 2 1-3 7 .

------- ‘Svobodnaya veshch'’ : Poetika neostraneniya u Andreya Platonova (Berkeley:Berkeley Slavic Specialities, 1997).

Miller, Martin A ., Freud and the Bolsheviks: Psychoanalysis in Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union (N ew Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998).

Minto, Marilyn, introduction to Andrey Platonov, Reka Potudan' (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1995), pp. v-xxviii.

Mitchell, Juliet, Psychoanalysis and Feminism (London: Allen Lane, 1974).M oi, Toril, ‘ Feminist, Female, Feminine’ , in Catherine Belsey and Jane

M oore (eds.), The Feminist Reader: Essays in Gender and the Politics of Literary Criticism, (London: Macmillan, 1989), 1 17 -3 2 .

-------Sexual/Textual Politics (London and N ew York: Routledge, 1985).Moller, Peter Ulf, Postlude to the Kreutzer Sonata: Tolstoj and the Debate on

Sexual Morality in Russian Literature in the 1890s, trans. John Kendal (Leiden: E . J . Brill, 1988).

Morch, Audun J ., The Novelistic Approach to the Utopian Question: Platonov's Cevengur in the Light o f Dostoevski]'s Anti-Utopian Legacy, Acta Humaniora 48 (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1998).

Morson, Gary Saul, The Boundaries of Genre: Dostoevsky's D iary o f a W riter and the Traditions of Literary Utopia (Austin: University o f Texas Press, 1981).

Mulvey, Laura, ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinem a’ , Screen 16/3 (1975), 6—18.

N a b o k o v , V l a d i m i r , Lolita, 2 vols. (Paris: The Olympia Press, 19 55).-------Nikolai Gogol (N ew York: N ew Directions, 1961).------- ‘Philistines and Philistinism’ , in Lectures on Russian Literature (San

Diego, N ew York: Harcourt Brace, 1981), 309 -14 .Naiman, Eric, ‘Andrej Platonov and the Inadmissibility o f Desire’ , Russian

Literature 23 (1988), 3 19 -6 5 .-------‘Historectomies: O n the Metaphysics o f Reproduction in a Utopian

A ge’ , in Jane Costlow, Stephanie Sandler and Judith Vowles (eds.), Sexual­ity and the Body in Russian Culture, (Stanford, C A : Stanford University Press, 1993), 255-76.

------- ‘ “ Iz istiny ne sushchestvuet vykhoda” : Andrey Platonov mezhdudvukh utopii’ , Literaturnoe obozrenie 9 (1994), 233-50 .

------- Sex in Public: The Incarnation of Early Soviet Ideology (Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1997).

-------‘The Thematic M ythology o f Andrej Platonov’ , Russian Literature 21(1987), 18 9 -2 16 .

B ibliography 219

-------‘V zhopu prorubit' okno: seksual'naya patologiya kak ideologicheskiikalambur u Andreya Platonova’ , Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie 4 (1998), 60-76.

N ikonova, T. A. (ed.), Audrey Platonov: Issledovaniya i materialy (Voronezh: Izdatel'stvo voronezhskogo universiteta, 1993).

Ostrovsky, N ikolay, ‘Kak zakalyalas' stal'\ in Sobranie sochinenii v trekh tomakh (Moscow: Molodaya gvardiya, 1989-90), i. 30-382.

Paperny, Vladimir, ‘Moscow in the 1930s and the Emergence o f a N ew C ity ’ , in Hans Gunther (ed.), The Culture of the Stalin Period (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan, 1990), 229-39.

Paramonov, Boris, ‘Chevengur i okrestnosti’ , {Continent 54 (1987), 333-72 .Perkhin, V., Literaturnaya kritika Andreya Platonova (St Petersburg: Sankt-

Peterburgskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 1994).Perry, John, The State of Russia under the Present Czar (London: [n. pub.],

1716), trans. Princess O Lga Mikhailovna Dondukova-Karasova as Sostoyanie Rossii pri nyneshnem tsare (Moscow: Izdanie imperatorskogo obshchestva istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh pri moskovskom universitete, 1871).

Pervyi vsesoyuztiyi s"ezd sovetskikh pisatelei: stenograficheskii otchet (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, 1934; M oscow: Sovetskii pisateL, 1990).

Podoroga, Valery, ‘The Eunuch o f the Soul: Positions o f Reading and the World o f Platonov’ , South Atlantic Quarterly 90/2 (1991), 357-408.

Popper, Karl, The Open Society and its Enemies, 2 vols. (London: George Routledge and Sons, 1945).

‘Porochnaya kritika’ , Literaturnyi kritik 9 (1937), 222-4.Pushkin, Aleksandr, ‘M ednyi vsadnik: Peterburgskaya povest'’ , in Poltioe

sobranie sochinenii, 17 vols. (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Academii nauk S SS R , 1937- 59), v. 135-50.

‘R eka Potudan: rabochie-retsenzenty o knige’ , Literaturnaya gazeta, 26 D ec­ember 1937, 6.

Robin, R egine, Le Realisme socialiste: Une esthetique impossible (Paris: Editions Payot, 1986), trans. Catherine Porter as Socialist Realism: A n Impossible Aesthetic (Stanford, C A : Stanford University Press, 1992).

Rose, Jacqueline, in trod uction -II’ , in Jacques Lacan, Feminine Sexuality: Jacques Lacan and the Ecole Freudienne, ed. Juliet Mitchell and Jacqueline R ose (London: Macmillan, 1982), 27-57 .

Rubin, Gayle, ‘The Traffic in Women: Notes on the “ Political Econom y” o f Sex ’ , in Rayna R . R eiter (ed.), Towards an Anthropology of Women (N ew York and London: M onthly R eview Press, 1975), 15 7 -2 10 .

Said, Edward, Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient (London: R o u t- ledge and Kegan Paul, 1978).

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky, Between Men: English Literature and Male Homo­social Desire (N ew York: Columbia University Press, 1985).

-------Epistemology o f the Closet (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1994).Seifrid, T homas, Andrei Platonov: Uncertainties of Spirit (Cambridge: Cam ­

bridge University Press, 1992).

220 B ibliography

-------‘Platonov, Socialist Realism , and the Legacy o f the Avant-Garde’ , inJohn E. Bow lt and Olga Matich (eds.), Laboratory o f Dreams: The Russian Avant-Garde and Cultural Experiment (Stanford, C A : Stanford University Press, 1996), 235-44.

Semenova, Svetlana, Nikolai Fedorov: Tvorchestvo zhizni (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel', 1990).

-------“ ‘Tainoe tainykh” Andreya Platonova (Eros i Pol)’ , in N. V. Kornienkoand E . D. Shubina (eds.), Andrey Platonov: M ir tvorchestva (Moscow: Sovre- mennyi pisatel', 1994), 12 2 -53 .

Shubin, L., Poiski smysla otdel'nogo i obshchego sushchestvovaniya (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’ , 1987).

Smith, Geoffrey, ‘Andrei Platonov, Constant Idealist o f a Fickle Revolution ’ , M .Phil. thesis (School o f Slavonic and East European Studies, 1993).

Steinberg, Mark D., Proletarian Imagination: Self Modernity and the Sacred in Russia, ig i 0-1925 (Ithica, N Y , and London: Cornell University Press, 2002).

Still, J udith, ‘A Feminine Econom y: Some Preliminary Thoughts’ , in M ary Eagleton (ed.), Feminist Literary Theory: A Reader, 2nd edn. (Oxford and Cambridge, M A : Blackwell, 1996), 325-6 .

Stites, R ichard, Revolutionary Dreams: Utopian Vision and Experimental Life in the Russian Revolution (N ew York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).

------- The Women's Liberation Movement in Russia: Feminism, Nihilism, andBolshevism, 1860-1950 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978).

Sultan-N iyazov, Bedy, ‘Ona pobedila’ , in Aiding-Gyunler: AVmanakh k desyatiletiyu Turkmenistana, 1924-1954 (Moscow: Izdanie yubileinoi komissii T s IK -T S S R , 1934), 127-8 .

T eskey, Ayleen, Platonov and Fyodorov: The Influence of Christian Philosophy on a Soviet Writer (Amersham: Avebury, 1982).

-------‘Platonov Criticism since 1958: A Comparison o f Soviet and Em igreAttitudes’ , Scottish Slavonic Review 4 (1985), 81-98 .

T heweleit, Klaus, Mannerphantasien, 2 vols. (Frankfurt am Main: R o ter Stern, 1978-8), trans. Stephen Conw ay as Male Fantasies, 2 vols. (Cam ­bridge: Polity Press, 1987-9).

Tolstaya-Segal, Elena, ‘ Ideologicheskie konteksty Platonova’ , Russian Literature 9 (1981), 2 3 1-8 0 , reprinted in N. V. Kornienko and E. D. Shubina (eds.), Andrey Platonov: M ir tvorchestva (Moscow: Sovremennyi pisateL, 1994), 47-83.

-------‘K voprosu o literaturnoi allyuzii v proze Andreya Platonova:PredvariteLnye nablyudeniya’ , Slavica Hierosolymitana 5-6 (1981), 355-69.

-------‘Naturfilosofskie temy v tvorchestve Andreya Platonova 20-kh-30-khgg.’ , Slavica Hierosolymitana 4 (1979), 223-54 .

-------‘O svyazi nizshikh urovnei teksta s vysshim i (Proza AndreyaPlatonova)’ , Slavica Hierosolymitana 2 (1982), 16 9 -2 12 .

B ibliography 221

-------‘ “ Stikhiinye sily” : Platonov i Pil'nyak (1928-19 29 )’ , Slavica Hierosoly-mitana 3 (1978), 89-109, reprinted in N. V. Kornienko and E. D. Shubina (eds.), Audrey Platonov: Mir tvorchestva (Moscow: Sovremennyi pisatel', 1994), 84-104.

Tvorchestvo Andreya Platonova: Issledovaniya i materialy (Saint Petersburg: Nauka, 1995).

Tvorchestvo Andreya Platonova: Issledovaniya i materialy. Kniga 2 (Saint Peters­burg: Nauka, 2000).

Tvorchestvo Andreya Platonova: Stat'i i soohshcheniya (Voronezh: Izdatel'stvo Voronezhskogo universiteta, 1970).

Vasey, Michael, Strangers and Friends: A New Exploration o f Homosexuality and the Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1995).

Vasil' ev, Vladimir, Audrey Platonov: Ocherk zhiztii i tvorchestva, 2nd edn. (Moscow: Sovremennik, 1990).

Vernitski, Anat, ‘Women Work, M en Muse: Gender R oles in Platonovs Articles and Short Stories’ , Essays in Poetics 27 (2002), 16 2-73.

Voloshinov, V. N ., Freidizm: Kriticheskii ocherk (M oscow and Leningrad: Gosizdat, 1927; N ew York: Chalidze, 1983), ed. and trans. I. R . Titunik (with Neal H. Bruss) as Freudianism: A Marxist Critique (N ew York, San Francisco and London: Academic Press, 1976).

Warner, Marina, Alone o f A ll Her Sex: The Myth and the Cult o f the Virgin Mary (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1976).

-------Monuments and Maidens: The Allegory o f the Female Form (London:Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1985).

Waters, Elizabeth, ‘The Female Form in Soviet Political Iconography, 19 17 -3 2 ’ , in Barbara Evans Clements, Barbara Alpern Engel and Christine D. Worobec (eds.), Russia's Women: Accommodation, Resistance, Trans­formation (Berkeley, Los Angeles and Oxford: University o f California Press, 1991), 225-42.

White, Hallie A., ‘Tim e out o f Line: Sequence and Plot in Platonov’s Chevengur, Slavonic and East European Journal 42/1 (1998), 10 2 -17 .

Williams, Rowan, ‘God and R isk (2)’ , in Richard Holloway (ed.), The Divine R isk , (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1990), 1 1 - 2 3 .

Wood, Elizabeth A., The Baba and the Comrade: Gender and Politics in Revolutionary Russia (Indianapolis and Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997).

Yablokov, E. A ., ‘Bezvykhodnoe nebo’ , in Andrey Platonov, Chevengur (Moscow: Vysshaya shkola, 1991), 5 -2 1 .

-------Na beregu neba: Roman Andreya Platonova ‘Chevengur\ StudiorumSlavicorum Monumenta 22 (St Petersburg: Dm itry Bulanin, 2001).

Yampol'sky, M ., ‘Platonov, prochitannyi Sokurovym ’ , in N. V. Kornienko and E. D. Shubina (eds.), Andrey Platonov: Mir tvorchestva (Moscow: Sovremennyi pisatel'), 397—409.

222 B ibliography

Zamyatin, Evgeny, ‘O literature, revolyutsii, entropii i o prochem’, trans. M irra Ginsburg as ‘O n Literature, Revolution, Entropy, and Other Matters’ , in A Soviet Heretic: Essays by Yevgeny Zamyatin (Chicago and London: Chicago University Press, 1970), 10 7 -12 .

-------‘O sintetizme’ , trans. M irra Ginsburg as ‘O n Synthetism’ , in A SovietHeretic: Essays by Yevgeny Zamyatin (Chicago and London: Chicago University Press, 1970), 8 1-9 1 .

-------Uezdnoe. M y and A. P. Platonov, Kotlovan. YuvenU'noe more (Moscow:Olimp, 1996).

Z holkovsky, Alexander, ‘The Codes and Contexts o f Platonovs “ Fro” ’ , in Zholkovsky, Text Counter Text: Rereaditigs in Russian Literary History (Stanford, C A : Stanford University Press, 1994), 270-96.