I haven’t done an eXile update in a week or so. I figure it is about time since the keen eyed poemless noted that the rag was saved by donations and plans to make a virtual return in the near future.
The press finally caught up with the eXile‘s demise with the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Fox News, the International Heral Tribune, the London Telegraph, UPI, among others, all reporting the story. All of them basically say the same information repeated ad nauseum, i.e. the irreverent paper folded after Russian inspectors scared off its investors. Even the Committee to Protect Journalists released a News Alert. My favorite headline comes from Danwei from Hong Kong. “Death of the Rude Russian Exile,” its report reads. As Jeremy Goldkorn, the piece’s author, points out,
As far as your correspondent knows, no foreigner has ever tried to publish anything like The Exile in China. The closest thing I have seen is the rather inward-looking and music obsessed Eight Inches of Arsehole, a photocopied zine that was distributed in bars in Beijing and amongst the expatriate hipster musician types and people with strong thoughts about Beijing expatriate magazines.
But it was photocopied, anonymous, and had no advertising or pretense of being commercial media. And they never touched politics.
Makes you wonder why Russia, and not China, is more the scourge of all freedom lovers.
It also makes me wonder why almost all of the reports listed above never mentioned the “e” word. Not even the lefty Mother Jones made the fact that the eXile was being audited for extremism an issue, despite hailing it as the “World’s Best Alt-Weekly” (the word only appears in a quote one of Ames’ Radar Online posts.) In fact, according to one of my handy dandy LexisNexis searches, extremism only appears into two articles on the subject. One written by Ames himself and the BBC Monitoring Service‘s translation of Limonov’s article. How strange. Especially since if anyone wants to make a bigger political issue out of the eXile‘s demise, Russia’s elastic extremism law is surely the issue.
As for Ames’ whereabouts, we might want to dust off an old Where’s Waldo? games. According to Ames’ latest dispatch, he could be in London (or even here in LA) or undergoing a water boarding session in a back room at Sheremetyevo.
Before Ames shipped out of Russia, he got the unique pleasure to debate Nashist and Duma rep Robert Schlegel on Moscow’s Govorit Moskva, 92.0 FM. About a month and a half ago Schlegel tried to make his legislative mark by introducing a bill to further harden Russia libel law. President Medvedev shot him down. Schlegel, as Ames describes him, “isn’t entirely human the way you and I are, but is rather some kind of genetically engineered Boys From Brazil product, created so that he might one day serve a cruel and scary tyrant.” Indeed. If you take a look at Radar‘s accompanying photo, you will see that no Russian has looked this Aryan since Ivan Drago.
The debate went as expected. You can read a transcipt (in Russian) here.
Perhaps the most interesting mainstream article on the “eXile Affair” (If there can be a Litvinenko Affair why not an eXile one?), was an article in the Moscow Times (reprinted in the St. Petersburg Times) by Owen Mathews. He argues that the eXile’s demise has much more symbolic meaning. He writes,
The story of The eXile is the story of an earlier, pre-boom Moscow, before gourmet supermarkets and sushi restaurants sprouted on every corner. The eXile was born in a place that was dark, vibrant and absolutely compelling. The money, the sin and the beautiful people — it was doomed, apocalyptic and transiently beautiful. The incandescent energy of the pretty, deluded party kids whom the paper wrote about could have lit up this blighted country for a century if channeled into anything other than self-destruction and oblivion.
Perhaps the end of the eXile is symbolic of Russia crossing the Rubicon into a full fledged Putinian utopia.
{ 178 comments }
← Previous Comments
Lyndon, come to think of it, I suppose in a sense I am looking for signs of Soviet openness, but probably not in the way you would expect. I’m not that much older than you, but I am sufficiently different for it to make a difference in this context. When Gorbachev came to power, I was 14, whereas you were (I think) 7. So you missed out on most of the craziness of the anti-Soviet propaganda, according to which, for instance, the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan in order to further advance into the Middle East, seizing the Saudi oil fields to hold the Free World ransom (seriously). Accordingly, I am always interested in anything that contradicts my childhood-inculcated image of the USSR as a Land of Foulest Evil, the population of which was composed of 50% pro-Western dissidents and 50% diabolic KGB operatives.
“There are about a hundred titles, by handful of authors.”
Name them.
“Soviet cinema produced about 10-20 movies a year, when Hollywood produced about 600.”
Candid, it’s not a fair play. Please deduct James Bond, Spider Man and other such “art”…
…O! Almost forgot – “Enemy at the gates”…
BTW do you know that CCCP at one time was producing more agricultural tractors than US? But ….
PS. Question for everyone! Who saw “Операция Ы” movie? It’s everything – horror, action, science fiction, western and Bolshoy Theater of course.
It is my understanding that little was actually banned (in the late USSR, anyway).
Considering that the state had discretion to identify just about anything as “anti-Soviet” and that possession of such materials (or being accused of their possession) could create problems for people’s career advancement (yes, even in the mid-1980s) and in extreme cases physical freedom, I think this depends on your definition of “banned.” Considering that the state had discretion to enforce vague laws about anti-Soviet activities or materials (whether they enforced them in all cases or not) and that the average citizen had absolutely no ability to defend himself legally against such charges, one might say that just about any foreign printed matter or video or audio media was at risk of being banned.
For example, I know the gentleman who translated the first edition of Jefferson’s collected writings to be published in the USSR, and – though you may find this hard to believe – it seemed like quite a big deal when the book was published in 1990.
Lyndon, come to think of it, I suppose in a sense I am looking for signs of Soviet openness, but probably not in the way you would expect. I’m not that much older than you, but I am sufficiently different for it to make a difference in this context. When Gorbachev came to power, I was 14, whereas you were (I think) 7.
I was born in May of ’76, which I think would have made me about to turn 9 when Gorby came into power, and I was living in Leningrad at the time. So yes, our perspectives are substantially different, given that I was exposed for several years to the full array of anti-American propaganda being employed in the USSR at the time – and also to the friendliness and curiosity of just about every single “unofficial” Russian I encountered at school or in our apartment building. The people were quite open, it was the government which feared that openness (perhaps less so under Gorby, but inertia is a powerful thing).
Since I went back to the US for the summers, I can affirm that official negative propaganda of “the other” was far more pervasive in the USSR and had no unofficial counter-propaganda (I’m referring to the sorts of peace, friendship and engagement movements which were present in the US in the mid-1980s) – on the other hand, Soviet propaganda was also not believed by much of the population, whereas in the US people probably took what the government had to say a bit more seriously (perhaps because they elected that government and because, say what you will about the US media, they generally don’t let the government lie with impunity (with some exceptions I’m sure we could all think of)).
So you missed out on most of the craziness of the anti-Soviet propaganda, according to which, for instance, the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan in order to further advance into the Middle East, seizing the Saudi oil fields to hold the Free World ransom (seriously).
No, I didn’t miss out on it, and it was probably even crazier way back in the 1950s. And of course within the US government and to a lesser extent within US society, people who supported engagement and openness toward the USSR were sometimes regarded with suspicion, so of course I recognize that Americans did not approach the Cold War rationally. Some of my school friends asked me if I had become a “commie” when we moved back to DC in 1987. Whatever.
However ridiculous some of the more extreme strains of American propaganda may have been (and it’s important to point out that those sorts of statements tended not to emanate from official government sources), I can assure you that they were outdone by Soviet propaganda vilifying the West and the US in particular. I’m sure you’ve seen some of the posters.
Also, as I mentioned before, a rather important distinction is that citizens in the US were free to undertake friendly initiatives (things like this) toward the USSR, which was not really the case in the Soviet environment (where any interaction with foreigners was tightly controlled by officials).
By the way, why do you think the Soviets invaded Afghanistan? To protect a brotherly socialist government? To secure their southern border? Or were they ahead of the curve in fighting Islamic militants? (n.b., this book appears to be an interesting account at first glance but may not be quite objective)
Accordingly, I am always interested in anything that contradicts my childhood-inculcated image of the USSR as a Land of Foulest Evil, the population of which was composed of 50% pro-Western dissidents and 50% diabolic KGB operatives.
Well, of course it wasn’t quite like that
Probably more like 5% of each and a vast group in the middle, most of whom during the 1980s were as fascinated by the West as we all might be today if we received visitors from another planet. On the other hand, then as now, that 50-50 ratio might represent the breakdown of people with whom foreign journalists interacted 
And there was a lot that was sinister but easily forgotten about the Soviet Union in the 1980s – aside from the crazy official suspicion of foreigners and anyone who associated with them, the practice of denying people exit visas comes to mind. The latter is easily forgotten within Russia today because the refuseniks were all eventually able to leave and so aren’t around to talk about it any more.
I could go on and on with personal observations about queues for anything other than food staples (and at times even for those) and about running to the department store (DLT) as soon as we heard they had caps (for cap guns), because we knew they would sell out that day, and the general inconveniences of Soviet life (which of course also had its unique charms and pleasures, such as a feeling of total safety from street crime), but I think I’m already too far off-topic (plus I think I’ve rambled about this stuff in the past in the comments section here) – and truth be told my family enjoyed a rather charmed existence there, since we had a large apartment (happily not in a diplomats-only building, although we did have a ment sitting in a booth in the courtyard watching our bedroom windows for a while; actually, our former apartment is now occupied by the Ukrainian consulate), the ability to shop at the Beriozka, and groceries delivered from Helsinki.
Anyway, overall, you’re right, I have a rather different perspective on those years which probably leads me to draw different conclusions about the quality and sustainability of the USSR as it existed in the mid-’80s; and I don’t really have a good firsthand memory of America’s early-’80s approach to the USSR, which I think is the time period to which you were referring.
Damn formatting tags. Sean, you have to get a “preview” feature on here.
For those who want to find out what was banned and what was filmed in CCCP (and show to friends and girlfriends in English, german, french etc.) – http://www.ruscico.com/
“Damn formatting tags. Sean, you have to get a “preview” feature on here.”
Totally agree.
PS. Question for everyone! Who saw “Операция Ы” movie? It’s everything – horror, action, science fiction, western and Bolshoy Theater of course.
Don’t forget light political commentary (“<a href=”Кто хочет сегодня поработать?!”Кто хочет сегодня поработать?!”). I tend to agree that Soviet cinema made up for its lack of quantity with quality, and the fact that commentary had to be smuggled into movies means that points had to be made (if at all, and I’m talking about a small portion of films here, of course) in ways much subtler than your typical Hollywood movie about an evil big corporation that just beats you over the head with its politics.
Но Бонда не трошь! Ранние выпуски – классика.
“By the way, why do you think the Soviets invaded Afghanistan? To protect a brotherly socialist government? To secure their southern border? Or were they ahead of the curve in fighting Islamic militants?”
I don’t really have much in the way of insider knowledge about this event to say the least.
However the version of events I have been told that makes most sense is that the Soviet military presence in Afghanistan mostly had to do with the Iranian Islamic Revolution and the fear that an Islamist Afghanistan could have destablizing effects on Soviet Central Asia.
IIRC most American agitprop was not really (at least directly, though I’m under the impression that there was some under the table government involvement) was not really government but rather came out of Hollywood and various think-tanks/lobby groups. Which is obviously a big difference from in the USSR — you don’t need to point it out.
“In the USSR, however, the denial of such professional affiliations meant that you were essentially denied an “official identity” as an artist – no ability to perform in public, no ability to have your recordings produced, to be “discovered,” etc.”
I used to hang out with a group of Muscovite artists (mostly in their 40s and 50s) and they all had fond memories of the USSR “art scene,” in which they would “exhibit” in their apartments. On the one hand, you couldn’t get official sponsorship or exhibition space; on the other, if all you cared about was producing art for its own sake, the Soviet system was very amenable for a bohemian existence in which you could devote as much time to painting etc. as you wanted (in your off hours from the boiler room job).
Right, we knew a few of the “unofficial” artists in SPB during the years we were there (and have stayed in touch with some of them), and they certainly had their own tusovka. They also did have, starting in the early 1980s, limited opportunities to be exhibited (this essay looks like a pretty good account of the era). Some of them have done quite well in the post-Soviet years, although I’ve certainly heard nostalgic tales of the boiler attendant job.
Although I could be wrong, I think any artist who is really serious about his/her work wants to share it with others (i.e., have it exhibited publicly), interact with artists from other cultures, and probably would prefer to have the chance to make a living doing what they love. Ultimately, a number of the people in the underground art world left the country, which in some cases was unfortunate for them as individuals and in all cases (I would argue) was unfortunate for the country.
…the Soviet system was very amenable for a bohemian existence…
Perhaps, as long as you were able to find one of those do-nothing jobs (in SPB the most coveted ones were as behind-the-scenes workers at the Hermitage) and didn’t try to stage large public exhibitions (one of which was rather famously bulldozed in the 1970s) or interact with foreigners. And it’s true that Soviet realities did provide the “unofficials” with pretty awesome fodder for their art, and in fact “nonconformist” art sort of died as a genre once there was nothing to “non-conform” to.
Thanks, Lyndon, for good observation.
But….
1. Бонд – сакс!
2. “I can assure you that they were outdone by Soviet propaganda vilifying the West and the US in particular. I’m sure you’ve seen some of the posters.”
As a person with better memory of that time I would say “Exactly! This is the trick!”
What did Soviet people think when saw these “official” posters and saw “official” horror stories on TV? Yes, right – most of normal people thought “Bullshit”. Who trusts the government? And it was mostly BS. This doesn’t mean that we knew what exactly was going on “za bugrom”. But we’ve heard a lot about. How do you think Medvedev knew about Deep Purple?
What did American people think when they saw films, news, comics, posters from “free press” and “free artists”? Yes, right – most of them thought “Poor russkie. They have to dig frozen stones for twelve hours a day then play balalaika and watch Komrad General Secretary on TV”. And they had no reason not to believe – it was not propaganda. Not at all. Pure freedom of speech (and private one).
When I “encountered” West for the first time I was really surprised how much, big and good everything were over there. I knew about it – but didn’t realize the scale of it until I saw it by myself (US cars sucks anyway against Japs. Except Fleetwood Brougham!)
When I met Americans who first time met Soviets/came to CCCP – it was kind of surprise. Educated people, with free access to every book, movie etc. – but their questions and comments about us was so silly and very often sounds like made by people with brain damage. They were really surprised with lack of balalaikas around
)))
PS. So – who saw “Операция Ы”?
“Although I could be wrong, I think any artist who is really serious about his/her work wants to share it with others (i.e., have it exhibited publicly), interact with artists from other cultures, and probably would prefer to have the chance to make a living doing what they love.”
Lyndon, you’re in defiance of the whole romantic Bohemian ideal from Baudelaire to Bukowski!
By the way Lyndon, Primakov discusses the Afghanistan war in his recent book on Middle East politics, the name of which is something like Blizhnii Vostok: Na stsene i za zanaves. I only skimmed the book about a year ago
(which has a very interesting account of his last meeting with Saddam), but IIRC he talks about how Afghanistan, unable to get sufficient aid from Moscow, began to turn toward Teheran (this is still during the Shah). Teheran would only do so on the condition that Afghanistan adopt an anti-Soviet policy. Then this was all further complicated by the actions of the Afghan Communists and the Iranian Revolution.
Please keep in my mind that I only skimmed the relevant section and don’t really recollect it all that well.
As no one seems to saw “Операция Ы” – I see no point to talk about Russian affairs. What do people know about Russia if they haven’t seen “Ы”?
And I’ve been wasting my time with them! OMFG!…
I have seen Операция Ы, and I have pictures to prove it, which I am not going to show you. Are you calling me a liar?
(This Averko debating technique is brilliant!)
BTW, it’s my understanding that Sean Guillory, David Johnson, Ira Strauss and (until recently) Peter Lavelle haven’t seen Ы. As some others have proven, proficiency in Ы doesn’t make them expert on any number of fact based topics related to the country in question.
Pardon the misspell.
Chris, thanks, I’ll try to pick that up the next time I’m in Moscow. Politicans’ memoirs, though… well, you know they like to rewrite history. Although that versiia does make some sense.
Incidentally, perhaps my favorite bit of political graffiti in Moscow, which was faded even when I first saw it in 2001 and probably related to the 1999-2000 electoral campaign, read “Primakov – Moskva ne Irak!”
You’re right about the bohemian ideal, of course, although one wonders how Baudelaire and Bukowski would have fared in the USSR.
ivanov, I hope it was clear from my comment above that I’ve seen Операция Ы – a number of times, actually, since it’s one of the movies they show (or perhaps they’ve moved on in recent years) on certain trains in Russia (e.g., SPB-Moscow, Moscow-Kaluga). But I have no photographic evidence – damn!
“You’re right about the bohemian ideal, of course, although one wonders how Baudelaire and Bukowski would have fared in the USSR.”
Bukowski was an alcoholic. He would have done great.
Seriously, my understanding of Bohemian Soviet life is largely determined by Limonov’s autobiographical novels about being a young man in Kharkov (which are actually not at all bad). He casually mentions reading a book by Freud in a bookstore in one of them, which is another of those things that makes me think “hmmm…”, since I always thought Freud was banned.
“But I have no photographic evidence – damn!”
Okey, okey… I trust you
But let’s check anyway.
“Агласите вессписк пжалста” – from what part of Ы?
Ummm, isn’t that the part where they are handing out the “voluntary” work assignments?
Anyway, I’m looking at a photo of me watching “Ы” right now. Anyone who says I haven’t seen it is a trolling troll, cheerleading for the existing inadequacies and hypocritically propping the not-so-Shurik-friendlies
Ah, even in his absence he is with us…
Lyndon Allin’s applied double standards. Note how he hypocritically props the not so Shurik friendlies and doesnt critique Vladimir Socor. This was shown by my excellent skills in the exchange with Ethan Burger.
Then there’s the Iceland friendly troll ivanov, who along with Chris Doss is a flack for Peter Lavelle and the flaws in the Eng Lang mASS media.
Mr. A! ASSASSIN!!!!
mwahahahahaha!!
Litvinenko was too Russia unfriendly, and was a flack for BAB.
Am hiding out here at my Momz, so no one can find me, with Alexandra and Andrew Waller!
C’mon Ger. The real Averko left the building weeks ago. Why resurrect a faux version of his annoying soul?
”C’mon Ger. The real Averko left the building weeks ago. Why resurrect a faux version of his annoying soul?”
Doh! Caught again!:-)
Interesting conversation. But the life in SSSR was though and not rich, but it had the good parties
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.