-
Conclusion
- Northwestern University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
188 Conclusion T H E P R E S E N T B O O M in Russian immigrant fiction shows no sign of abating. The phenomenon has begun to spill over from the publishing industry into academia, where literary scholars have begun to take notice of the new trend as well. At the annual convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies in 2009, no fewer than four panels were devoted to the topic of recent Russian-American literature. In an article with the whimsical title “The Beet Generation,” published in the short-lived Russia! magazine, the journalist Emily Gould noted in 2008 that “Russian immigrant authors—especially writers who write explicitly about Russia and Russianness—are So Hot Right Now.”1 New translingual Russian authors have continued to appear in a steady stream. Are they part of a “publishing trendlet,” as Gould put it, or “wavelet,” to borrow a term coined by Val Vinokur?2 Will this wavelet turn into a full-blown wave, or have we perhaps already reached a point of “overkill,” as Gary Shteyngart suggested in conversation with Gould, underlining his words by “mim[ing] the action of someone picking up a book—‘Another Russian writer!’ and putting it down in disgust”? At least as of this writing, publishers have continued to put their money on Russian immigrant writers. A telltale sign of the growing popularity of the “Russian brand” can be seen in the fact that even some American-born writers with no Russian roots have begun to join the Russian-American bandwagon.3 The Russian immigrant writers are increasingly perceived and marketed as a group reinforcing and feeding off each other’s success. Sometimes several of these authors are lumped together at promotional events. Gould reports that Lara Vapnyar, Anya Ulinich, and Sana Krasikov were featured in 2008 at a common reading at the Eldridge Street Synagogue in New York City. The event, with the title “Rocking the Gulag,” also included Russian musical interludes and vodka. To be sure, not all authors are happy to be promoted in this manner. In conversation with Gould, Ulinich expressed strong reservations about the slogan “Rocking the Gulag,” which she dismissed as a dubious marketing gimmick. She conceded, however, that she would not Conclusion 189 protest as long as there were tangible financial benefits. As she put it, “I’ll wear a kokoshnik and dance with a bear if that will sell a million copies of my book and pay for my kids’ college.” When asked by Kevin Kinsella whether she belonged to a movement or school of Russian-American fiction, Ulinich gave a rather measured response, identifying herself as part of a generation rather than a particular type of writing: Gosh, I hope Americans are attracted to us as a group. It would be so nice to be a part of a trend. To have mad throngs storming bookstores, dying to get their hands on the latest Russian American novel! As I see it, this is a country of immigrants, and there is a multitude of books written by immigrants in America—so some of these immigrant writers happen to be Russian. The reason all of us Russians appeared at more or less the same time has more to do with Russian politics than with literary trends. During the Soviet times, before Gorbachev came to power in Russia in 1986, it was fairly difficult to emigrate, and fewer people came to the U.S. Starting in the late 1980s, it became easier to leave, and people began to arrive in droves. I suppose, statistically , more people mean more potential writers. . . . It took us a while to grow up and learn English, and so here we are now.4 The other “Russian debutantes” have made similar statements. As mentioned before, Olga Grushin said she was happy to belong to “a new generation of Russian writers working in America,”5 but she clearly sees herself as distinct from the other members of that group (tellingly, she is not even mentioned in Gould’s article). Sana Krasikov has expressed her distance as well. As we have seen, she rejects any allegiance to a particular school of writing , calling herself a realist who is “inspired by life” rather than a “fabulist” (presumably her term for Shteyngart).6 Shteyngart himself has stressed the differences between him and other Russian-American writers, denying that his work was written “in dialogue” with them. When asked about his relation to Vapnyar...