The Great Liberator Of The Soviet Regime

983 Words4 Pages
Yet what is striking about Akhmatova’s oeuvre, is though she was deeply denounced and from the political scene of the country, she remained committed to her home and refused to emigrate. Akhmatova lost much to the political regime, yet by continuing to live in the country, she became a great liberator of the Russian people through her work. Not because she memorialised the experience of the people, but because her work resonated with the polity long after the revolutionary spirit was lost. Poetry, and the personal private experiences of individuals are often considered too lofty for the realm of politics. Individual matters and personal reflection are not utilitarian, they do not constitute work. Yet for Akhmatova, it was her responsibility to remember the events of Stalin’s terror. Akhmatova’s work was criticised by the Soviet regime for being too idealistic, too Romantic and strewn religious jargon to be useful to society (Berlin: 2004). And when her writing was banned from publishing, she found herself impoverished; unable to write, she had found work translating famous books. Yet she denounced the young poets who she saw to not speak from the soul, to only use their talents to reify the regime which favoured them so. Akhmatova described them as ‘literary bandits; prostitutes of their gifts, and exploiters of public tastes. Mayakovski’s influence has been fatal to them all…They are vulgar declaimers with not a true spark of poetry in them’ (Berlin 2004: 80). Akhmatova became one of the great poets of the 20th century, for her work offered ‘indictment of the Russian Reality’ (Berlin, 2004: 80). And despite her solitude, Akhmatova, found a bridge back into ethical and political life. While the work of art must always begin wit... ... middle of paper ... ...e physiognomy of history as decay not as bloom’ (Rose, 1993: 195). Thus, the imagination of one’s participation in the city which is perhaps more problematic than the lack of participation itself. Yet, the same issue arises with theorists, who, at the beginning of their work, must murder their forefathers in an attempt to build their theory anew. Inaugurated mourning, therefore, becomes something increasingly difficult to realise. Perhaps the actor nor the author is not the most central actor at all, but rather the recognition of the social within the political which can only occur before a wider audience. Completely social reflection can destroy possibility or create new beginnings. For the ‘‘time of the now’; is the past referred to redemption, to a unique, not an eternal image of the past [but] ‘a constellation’ with the present’ (Rose, 1993: 205) (italics added).

More about The Great Liberator Of The Soviet Regime

Open Document