Censorship of Literature in Totalitarian and Other Regimes

[DocPtah]

Why the pen is often mightier than the sword -- if only because the former provides the all-important motivation for wielding the latter.


In The Master and Margarita, By Mikhail Bulgakov, the main character, “The Master” (who tends to come across strongly as Bulgakov himself), is routinely subjected to severe censorship – including at least one raid upon his apartment in search of subversive literature – just the sort of thing on which The Master had in fact been working. He dodges this particular bullet by having just burned his manuscript.

However, the love of his life does what she can to resurrect the story, and this leads to one of the more famous of Bulgakov’s axioms of life, i.e., “Manuscripts don’t burn.” This is another thread in and of itself. But for the moment consider some of Bulgakov’s history in terms of censorship.

The Master and Margarita was written in the 1930s, being allegedly finished just prior to Bulgakov’s death in March 1940. It was not, however, actually published until the mid 1960s, after which it became famous for a variety of reasons. It is important to recognize that censorship in Russia and the Soviet Union for most of the first half of the Twentieth Century was rampant, and in many respects greatly constrained Bulgakov during his lifetime, leaving him with only the shreds of what should have been the acclaim for his many works, novels, and plays. It is perhaps noteworthy that much of Bulgakov’s novels and plays are based upon his own history and experiences – and thus reflect his society, often in unflattering ways. The latter is one of the prime reasons for censorship.

Bulgakov first became known in Russia during his lifetime due to his first substantial work, a novel, The White Guard, which told the story of the Turbins (characters very likely patterned after Bulgakov’s own family and his early history in Kiev). The novel told of a slightly upper class family (with aristocratic inclinations and fondness for the Czar), and their reaction to the Civil War that was waged in 1918 between the Reds, the Whites, and other groups, some allied with – and ultimately betrayed by -- the Germans of WWI fame. It was the end of an era, and Bulgakov told a story of people of honor seeing their world disintegrate before their eyes in the bitter cold of the Ukrainian winter.

Bulgakov later moved to Moscow, where he was encouraged to turn his novel into a play, renamed The Days of the Turbins. The play was a great success, but was continually being criticized by the hard line Bolsheviks. The play portrayed the Whites and their supporters in a positive manner, and thus was considered counter-revolutionary – a clear avenue to censorship oblivion. However, the play survived and remained in the Moscow Arts Theater repertory because, ostensibly, Joseph Stalin liked it. The reasoning was that Stalin concluded that if a family of the quality of the Turbins could be overcome by the Bolsheviks, then perhaps it was worth dramatizing this.

The reality, however, is that Stalin’s personal intervention into Bulgakov’s life might not have been quite so glamorous. It is true that after 1927 none of Bulgakov’s later work was published in his lifetime, and that in 1929 Bulgakov had sent a letter to 17 different addresses in the Soviet government, asking to be allowed to leave the country, or to be given any kind of work in the theater. One of the addressees was Stalin.

A key factor is that Bulgakov also hinted in his letter that he was at his wit’s end. Then, four days after the suicide of another famous Russian writer in 1930, Stalin telephoned Bulgakov personally, suggesting that employment as an assistant director of the Moscow Arts Theater was indeed possible. It is thus entirely possible that Stalin’s intervention was less on a personal whim, i.e., that he liked the play, and more on the possibility that another known writer might kill himself and thus might embarrass the State. Stalin supposedly attended the play numerous times – that’s how much he liked it -- but such information might as likely be myth as history.

This point is mentioned here to suggest totalitarian states are not necessarily omnipotent, and must occasionally take into account public opinion – even if said state would never admit to such a radical thought, directly or indirectly. Stalin did not, for example, tell Bulgakov that if the author didn’t kill himself, he could have a nice job with the theater. Stalin simply told Bulgakov that he might apply at the theater – and of course when the writer did, the way had already been paved for Bulgakov’s employment.

The aversion to suicide statistics of known and average citizens has always been a thorn in the side of totalitarian states. This theme is in fact fundamental to the academy award winning movie, The Lives of Others, based on events in the early 1960s in communist held East Germany. The movie, by the way, is well worth seeing, even if you don’t speak German and must rely on subtitles. It beautifully describes – one of the best examples of a well written script in modern times -- the totalitarian state when taken to the extremes possible with German efficiency. (That in itself – as well as the movie -- might be yet another thread in this discussion).

The East Germans, for example, were incredibly adept at maintaining statistics on every imaginable aspect of life in their communist regime. They kept records like you wouldn’t believe – including records that were later available to both the persecutors and their nemeses (providing for some interesting materials for ambitious writers). The East Germans, however, at one point ceased to report on suicides – ostensibly calling them by every name under the sun… other than suicide. (This is not totally dissimilar to the statistics on AIDS, where for political and censorship reasons deaths are attributed to all manner of diseases… but not specifically to AIDS). Suicide statistics, after all, constitute particularly convincing evidence of the social success of a State or government. People killing themselves rather than live in a world of freedom postponed and/or denied is not a positive recommendation for such a State.

[Dorman1]

That is a very interesting read and I never had it pointed out to me before, that a government would affect a change upon statistics to hide the number of suicides being committed within their nation.

[Acolyte]

That is a very interesting read and I never had it pointed out to me before, that a government would affect a change upon statistics to hide the number of suicides being committed within their nation.

Perhaps you should take a look at cause of death by firearm in the US? It's an enlightening statistic.

Suicides typically make up 56.5% of all gun deaths according to the Bureau Of Justice Statistics. In fact, drugs and suicides account for more than 2 out of every 3 gun deaths in the USA.

from here

[Dorman1]

I went over and read what you directed me to, Acolyte. Unless I read it wrong, it appears a very narrow spectrum of Americans are dangerous with guns. Drug dealers recently out of High School, would simply find a different method to kill, as would suicides.

Government is probably more fearful of 'good men' possessing guns. Government creates the demand for crutches and prosecutes crutch users. I have to find the name of the man I just quoted.

In America, democrats finally created their totalitarian government. They made any institution accepting federal money, also accept their regulations, or statutes, or codes, whatever these small little laws are that amount to around 16 million in number. When the equal rights amendment -which was never ratified- was put under the rule of the Supreme Court, rather than state legislatures or congress, it changed how our government works, radically. One of the manifestations of this is the fighting you witness over possible candidates to the Supreme Court.

Bush got blamed for katrina relief, when in fact, nobody was capable of filling out the required forms to get this aid. Two experiments were actually carried out, paying groups of people to attempt a successful completion of these forms, they all failed. Even a group of lawyers doing it had some failures. You can't get rid of a regulation except by voting to be rid of each one individually. Republicans can't really be effective now, most bureau's which had to pop up like weeds to administrate this federal register -the waste land of infinite laws- possess a great antiphathy toward republicans. Personally, I think u s gov. is becoming a menace. On top of that building near the end of the movie, Ghostbusters, the demi-god instructed the ghostbusters to name their destructor. I think we just did, in '08. Not Obama, but all the rest of them, Pelosi et al. I hope I'm wrong. I very often am wrong.

[Acolyte]

I don't know if Obama is going to be anything different - a new rhetoric perhaps but the same old, same old going on. It's a long running game & those who put in place the top ranks to run the place have been neither removed nor exposed. There is no reason they would suddenly change to backing a dark horse *grins* without knowing just where he's headed.

Obama came from almost nowhere to take the prize - I'd doubt there's ever been a President with so little relevant experience. McCain's performance on the night he lost was convincing - convincing that is that he hadn't really tried. I think he was a placeholder, someone to ensure nobody surprising popped up to run. He was SOOO incompetent in his run up and SOOO competent in his acquiescence that I cannot believe it. And Palin was such a ridiculous choice it was obvious someone in the background had decided it was time for the other side to have a run.

And still there is no indication the US is going to drop the censorship that the mainstream media practices. Australia isn't too bad as we have SBS & ABC who have a history of going against the grain in reporting, but even they are faltering in their reporting.

I think censorship is only one problem, or symptom of a deeper issue - we have no say in our society any more. Our voice is not heard, we cannot choose who we want to govern, we do not know for whom we vote & even when they say they will do things for us, once in they toe the party line - those who don't are ousted as soon as feasible.

We see it expressed in anger, in fear and apathy. How many people do you know who do NOT have an escape of some kind? For some it's drugs, others alcohol, some retreat into hopelessness & a withdrawal from an involvement in anything but the mundane aspects of life, others turn to religion where they can be assured of a better life to come & get told what to do in this one. We become joiners, people who identify ourselves by our affiliations, who literally say 'I am [insert profession]' when asked.

We ride the platform of the runaway stagecoach that is our lives, unable to talk to or influence the driver. Every so often we swap drivers but the best choice we can make is to pick one of two offerings placed at the way station by the company who tell us where the stagecoach is going to go.

When we cannot influence what goes on in our lives, when the government plays games restricted only by how clever they can be in the lies they tell us, are there ANY non-totalitarian regimes? Or do we just inhabit a prison where the walls are painted with pretty landscapes rather than showing bare brick?

[Dorman1]

It almost seems to me I wrote the above post, it is so close to the way I feel about it. I don't like to say anything bad about Palin since I sort of prefer republicans. But I have checked into things she has done and not done. So my not arguing with you about her, indicates I have no argument. I've been a democrat all my life, but only because my father was, and I never really looked at either party closely. Too busy being young and goofing around. I've been able to see a pattern which seems to have started before WWI, and it has sort of turned me off toward dems. Another thing is, if I have come to some apparent enlightenment, and now perceive myself as a person who has wronged others, I'm going to constructively try to make amends. I'm not going to convince people that they should hate my guts, they are usually only too willing to do just that. They usually also tend to believe you if they are told they are victims.

What do you do if you are convinced you have been wronged, and that you are a victim? Nothing constructive, is the likely answer. This has bothered me for a long time; why get all gushy and explain to people we have victimized them horribly, which can only result in manifestations of anger, resentment, wanting something for nothing, etc., and it occurred to me finally as they are the ones also explaining how they "got their back". They did a beautiful switcharoo! We actually had to kill a whole lot of democrats in order to abolish slavery, and somehow the democrats have "got their back". They also have added hundreds of thousands of small little laws to the federal register over a short period of time, and the beauracracy they had to create in order to administrate it is gigantic. I don't even want republicans in power anymore, the government has actually been morphed into something that works against them. Actually, I would not mind if the African American's actually controlled the entire federal government. They have mountain-loads of spirit compared to these rich democrat leaders isolated in their ivory tower neighborhoods.

I don't care about the other races consisting of much older souls, if they are becoming strictly materialistic machines. If they are becoming lost to the machine --and I'm using the matrix symbology that I brought up in another post-- then they are empowering the antichrist. They will have no effect on me, except for sadness at the direction they are deciding for themselves.

[Elusia]

Discussions like this always remind me of 'Animal Farm'. : )

Doc Ptah said:

It is perhaps noteworthy that much of Bulgakov’s novels and plays are based upon his own history and experiences – and thus reflect his society, often in unflattering ways. The latter is one of the prime reasons for censorship.

In those countries that try to convince their citizens and the world that they are being run in the 'best way', they use censorship to keep down anything that would tarnish that. (and so hopefully show them in their best light.) It sounds like Mr. Bulgakov was lucky that this was so.

# censor - ban: forbid the public distribution of ( a movie or a newspaper)
# censor - someone who censures or condemns
# censor - subject to political, religious, or moral censorship; "This magazine is censored by the government"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

So what is our censorship trying to accomplish? It seems like all the 'good stuff', while not totally ignored, isn't given much attention--I think a much better way of keeping people from noticing it. If it's banned, the natural reaction of people is to try to 'get hold of it'. And all the things that are emphasized make people feel scared or mad or helpless. Backing up a little.........what is censored in America anyway? Yes the media seems to focus on gloom and doom and they report in a biased fashion.....but at this point they still aren't the only source of info. Thank goodness for libraries and the internet!

I've been impressed by President Obama and his wife too. I'm glad he Didn't have all the political 'experience'. He seems more like a very organized businessman than a political ..........whatever. They have walked into a huge monster not of their own making. I would imagine that they're going to have to work within 'the same old same old' for a while, maybe quite a while, before it can be unraveled.

I especially like that they've transformed their campaign connections into a participating group.........It was very nice to see all those people of different ethnicities, political parties, genders & probably any other group that 'usually' keeps separate like religions, so excited and hopeful. Especially the young people. And that crowd at the inaugaration was amazing!

Of course, it remains to be seen what comes of it..........but doesn't it always? : )

[Dorman1]

I'm still cringing over the words of my previous post. I think one thing you pointed out to me Elusia, was the fact of our liberal press painting a very bad picture of America to the rest of the world. I can't honestly say that I feel the democrats will totally 'screw up' at running this nation. I also would not want to be in their shoes, or more accurately, I can't imagine the experience of being in their shoes. I think Gurjieff once explained what it is politicians do. The same as many of us do; we follow our programming. This means we aren't 'doing' anything, we are reacting as things happen.

We should let the Joint Chiefs of Staff run the nation for a while. They know how to apply force precisely and for proper affect, or is it effect? Which means a lot less suffering by anyone as a result of what the US does. They would actually be more expert at being benefactor's providing services and provisions, and keeping the peace until there is no need for our security services. We are probably meant to experience an industrial age, as we did the agrarian age. I was told that the total number of ants, outweigh the total number of humanity. One wouldn't think this is correct, but it is. How does a species survive when it propagates to such immense proportions? Our species to be specific. I can only imagine that a lot of things must be given up. Selfishness might be at top of the list.

Other nations have emulated us only too well. There once was only a single digit number of nations that had roads everywhere, covered with gas or diesel driven vehicles. We should simply fill the globe with interconnected, self sufficient communities, striving toward subjects such as physics and metaphysics, while also living close to Nature. Our biggest argument would be over who discovered the Higgs particle first.

[Elusia]

Dorman1

We should simply fill the globe with interconnected, self sufficient communities, striving toward subjects such as physics and metaphysics, while also living close to Nature.

Wouldn't that be great?

(I'm not sure what bothered you about your post.) I'd say 'don't cringe' but that would be hypocritical cause I do it too But that's what's great about 'talking' outloud, it sort of pulls things together better than just thinking it.........and hearing it from another point of view helps too.

[DocPtah]

Acolyte said:

When we cannot influence what goes on in our lives, when the government plays games restricted only by how clever they can be in the lies they tell us, are there ANY non-totalitarian regimes? Or do we just inhabit a prison where the walls are painted with pretty landscapes rather than showing bare brick?

There is a saying that freedom consists of having the bars of one's cage at a distance greater than one would ever care to fly.

This may be another way of saying that we can create our own reality. We can, perhaps, look upon censorship as a means to attempting to keep the bars to our cages out of sight... something, I suppose, of the nature of things as illustrated in the movie, "Matrix". The relevant question then becomes: Can we be free to attain our destinies... even within the confines of the Matrix? Can we be blissfully happy as slaves? Is "wilful ignorance" a thing to be relished?

It might be worthwhile considering that most of the negatives associated with censorship are negative only in the sense of preventing us from attaining or reaching certain goals. If, for example, we have no need for drama... then perhaps the censorship that would cause rebellion... no longer carries the same motivation to stand up and yell that we're sick and tired and we're not going to take it anymore!

More importantly, how important is it for us to not only know the truth (which we can always do, to some degree irregardless of censorship), but to disseminate our truth to others (which would be precisely where the censors would rush in to prevent us doing so)?

I heard recently that roughly 65% of the population has a very strong tendency to go along with whatever authority says or does. It's the... for me... mind boggling idea that even when the President (of the U.S.) is a village idiot or the same old/same old (but colored differently)... he's still the President and deserves our respect. (Yes, I've actually heard otherwise intelligent people say such things!)

The question this raises is: how important is it for us to convince the others of our truths? Forget for the moment that I've spent some 20 man-years in attempting to do just that... and only lately have limited myself to speaking my truth to those who just happen to wander by where my postings might intrigue them.

When it comes to saving the world... I always remember the message of the book/play, Les Miserables. There the youth go to take a stand... fully expecting to rally the people around them. The people are, of course, not about to risk their lives... and the idealistic youth go down in flames. Perhaps, not everyone wants to be saved!

How much of our writings -- that might be censored -- are purely our own form of ego-gratification?

[Dorman1]

DocPtah wrote;

I heard recently that roughly 65% of the population has a very strong tendency to go along with whatever authority says or does. It's the... for me... mind boggling idea that even when the President (of the U.S.) is a village idiot or the same old/same old (but colored differently)... he's still the President and deserves our respect. (Yes, I've actually heard otherwise intelligent people say such things!)

I was very tired at the time I addressed this. I'm editing it to bring up another point. The federal register was filled with an almost infinite number of small regulations or laws. One example of the vastness of this endeavor is illustrated by the fact that in '93 and '94 alone, over a hundred thirty thousand were added to it. The republicans had nothing to do with this. This created a need for more beauracracy to administer this universe of regulations. The influx of government employee's hired to do this are biased against the republicans. After Katrina in New Orleans, federal aid was almost impossible to get; the required forms to complete were simply too difficult to successfully submit. Groups of people were even hired as an experiment to see if 'they' could do it... they couldn't. Then a group of lawyers were paid to conduct this same experiment and many of them failed to complete the forms correctly. Republicans cannot function within the federal government anymore. The democrats own it. It is strange that Bush got blamed for the inadequate aid to Katrina victims, when he, along with most of the republicans had nothing to do with the near impossible forms required to be completed. I will probably require a lobotomy: I'm not good enough to be part of the olligarchy, and I'm over qualified to be a zombie on the dole.

The question this raises is: how important is it for us to convince the others of our truths? Forget for the moment that I've spent some 20 man-years in attempting to do just that... and only lately have limited myself to speaking my truth to those who just happen to wander by where my postings might intrigue them.

I'm being a smart___ in the above. For fun. What you see in bold print above, is what I was sort of thinking about all day today. I was actually getting sick of myself, I felt as if I've reached the point where I have been proselytizing. I have no complaints whatsoever about anything you post. I would rank this site very high in contrast to the vast number on the net.

When it comes to saving the world... I always remember the message of the book/play, Les Miserables. There the youth go to take a stand... fully expecting to rally the people around them. The people are, of course, not about to risk their lives... and the idealistic youth go down in flames. Perhaps, not everyone wants to be saved!

I read this novel in 11th grade English Lit., and should have watched the recent tv airing it had. I only remember he (Jean val Jean) was pursued for decades by a Detective for a murder he committed in his youth, and I think this crime had mitigating circumstances as well. It was used recently as well in the area of comment upon karma. The old man (youth), paying for past causes later as the new man (old). It also reminds me of exile being used rather than normal punishments, toward any man who had been a study in Faith, Spiritual paths. This effort is never completely lost, even though the man had fallen into dark desires, deeds. On a personal note, I can sometimes be quite unfair toward others. Call me on it when this happens, and I will humbly correct my indiscretions.

[YODY]

Well forbidden is forbast like the dog who wont obey the master. i h ve never been to egypt but i believe that the hotels in el-sharm now have the most beautiful water parks