Oroke on SovietSF

8/14/2019 Oroke on SovietSF

1/23

Oroke 1

Wyatt OrokeHistory 303

Aliens Behind the Iron Curtain:

A Discussion of Soviet Science Fiction and its Commentary on Soviet and American Relations

From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across theContinent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern

Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all thesefamous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all

are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in manycases, increasing measure of control from Moscow.

-Winston Churchill March 5, 1946

How does humankind react when confronted with the Other? It may be somewhat easy

to tackle this question when thinking about alien life forms billions of miles away; but what

happens when we take the billions of miles and shrink it down to just a few thousand? How does

this change in our contextual alignment force us to redefine the otherness which we are faced

with? For many following the onslaught of the cold war the other was a not so distant creature,

they were instead a group of human-ish life forms existing just across the ocean.

Following the Second World War tension between the United States and the Soviet

Union increased, initiating the time period identified as the cold war. This war of ideologies

often turned to the battlefield of a piece of paper rather than a distraught wasteland. While the

two nations engaged in an arms race, it was in fact, the pencil and pen which were used as the

primary weapons, not the nuclear bombs. With the influx of propaganda on both sides of the

Iron Curtain it became easy for each civilization to formulate a highly biased and negative

viewpoint of the other.1A typical Western mindset is to simply write-off Soviet Russia as a

suppressed society. This understanding is immensely flawed and fails to account for both the

1. Jeffrey Brooks, Thank You, Comrade Stalin! Soviet Public Culture from Revolution to Cold War(Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press, 2000)


2/23

Oroke 2

complexities of history and the diversities of culture. Soviet Science Fiction (SSF) questioned

this belief of a suppressed society existing behind the Iron Curtain and instead encouraged

ideological understanding. Rather than utilizing SF as a forum to discuss the horrors of the

capitalist world, Soviet writers made a call for universal understanding of the other.

The Russian-American SF writer, Isaac Asimov, at first glance appears to have a correct

interpretation of SSF on the grounds of how he would like to believe that the Soviet citizen

would really like to see the coming of a reign of love when nations shall not lift up sword

against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.2 However, Asimov is very skeptical with

his point, mainly due to the fact that it is in direct opposition to a point he made earlier in the

same year (1962),3in his introduction to Soviet Science Fiction. Here he lays down the

periodization of American SF and relates it to the development of SSF. The three stages

acknowledged by Asmiov are: Stage 1 (1926-1938) adventure dominated; Stage 2 (1938-1950)

technology dominated; and Stage 3 (1950-?) sociology dominated.4Asimov argues that there is

no Soviet Stage Three science fiction.

5

He believes the reason for this is based upon the

education of the Soviet people through the constant learning of how the Soviet society will

eventually become the dominant society all over the world, any contrary reference would

suggest a lack of Soviet patriotism.6However, not even a year following this claim, Asimov had

a change of heart. In his introduction toMore Soviet Science Fictionhe first recognizes his error

2Isaac Asimov, introduction to Soviet Science Fiction(New York: Collier Books, 1962), 13.

3Isaac Asimov, introduction toMore Soviet Science Fiction (New York: Collier Books, 1962), 12-13.

4Asimov, Soviet Science Fiction. 11.

5Ibid., 12.

6Ibid., 12-13.


3/23

Oroke 3

and now believes here in this book are examples of Stage Three stories.7This quick

discrediting of his point undermines his overall argument and makes it hard to validate his

intellectual understanding of the literature. There in fact does exist the theme of cooperation and

understanding with the metaphoric other in SSF; and the impact of literary control by

governmental leaders within the Soviet Union had far less of a catastrophic impact on the writing

then is suggest by most scholars.8Soviet writers were still able to produce works which

examined their own society and look into the framework of future societies. Furthermore, the

Soviet writings, especially those in the late 1950s and early 1960s are a product of their time and

display an evident form of optimism towards the society which produced them. While the SSF

works being examined do only reflect a small portion of the SF of the time, the authors which are

under examination Alexander Belayev, Anatoly Dnieprov, Alexander Kazantsev, Victor

Saparian, Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, Ivan Yefremov, and Valentina Zhuravelva-- still

represent a diverse section of the SSF community.9

It is easy to claim the SSF writers of the time were only functioning within the realm of

their suppressed society, and were therefore unable to speak truthfully about the societal

framework which they existed in, i.e. a suppressed dictatorship. However, this is not a fair

assessment of the entirety of SSF, and in fact shows a limited ability to understand the changes

7Asimov,More Soviet Science Fiction . 7.

8John Glad,Extrapolations from Dystopia: a Critical Study of Soviet Science Fiction(New Jersey: Kingston Press,1981); John Griffiths, Three Tomorrows: American, British, and Soviet Science Fiction (New Jersey: Barnes and

Noble Books, 1980);Rafail Nudelman, Soviet Science Fiction and the Ideology of Soviet Society, Soviet FictionStudies, Vol. 16, No. 1 (March 1989) 38-66. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4239917 (accessed October 11, 2010;

Harold Swayze,Political Control of Literature in the USSR, 1946-1959(Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University

Press, 1962).

9Soviet Science Fiction, edited by Isaac Asimov (New York: Collier Books, 1962); More Soviet Science Fiction ,

edited by Isaac Asimov (New York: Collier Books, 1962); Path Into the Unknown: The Best of Soviet Science

Fiction, edited by Judith Merril (New York: Delacorte Press, 1968);Russian Science Fiction, edited by RobertMagidoff (New York: New York University Press, 1964).


4/23

Oroke 4

which constantly were occurring within Soviet society. Writers and historians alike tend to focus

their attention on one particular aspect of the society and use it to discuss the culture as a whole.

The reign of Joseph Stalin was marked by a series of suppressive acts in the political, economic

and social realm. A major act which has come to define Stalin is known as the The Great

Purges. Ronald Grigor Suny, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago,

discusses how repression intensified in 1936, and the height of the terror was reached in

1937.10

This repression and terror focused on anything which the government found to be anti-

Soviet.11

During this time there was a clear rise in both labor camps and slave laborers. This

transformation of the Soviet Union changed the societal framework of the time: Suny estimates

anywhere between ten to eleven million people had their lives destroyed from 1932-1938.12

What is truly significant about this time is how the Great Purges removed all limits on the

unbounded despotism of Stalin.13

A new rule comes about in the Soviet Union under Joseph

Stalin when the Great Purges ended in 193814

; this rule is often marked by further oppression and

tyranny. While this does reflect one of the darker moments in Soviet society it did not make up

the entirety of the society, nor even a large portion. Think of it in a possibly more

comprehendible context: the Holocaust constituted an extremely negative moment in German

history. However, the history of the Germanic people is extremely diverse and complex and

therefore one should not be persuaded to only see German history through the lens of the

10

Ronald Grigor Suny, The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States(Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1998), 262.

11Ibid., 264.

12Ibid., 266. This destruction includes imprisonment, exiling, perishing due to famine, and execution.

13Ibid.

14Mary McAuley, Soviet Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 50.


5/23

Oroke 5

Holocaust. Instead all aspects of the societal history must be taken into account, along with an

events proportionality. With the same understanding, Stalins reign of terror should not be the

means of examining the entirety of Soviet history. In fact shortly following Stalins death in

1953 a period of political reform emerged.15The general feelings of the time become those of

optimism, The faults and terrors [of socialism] were due to Stalin and the rule of terror; now the

sky was the limit.16

Jeffrey Brooks, a Professor of European History at Johns Hopkins

University, discusses how Stalinism itself would soon become a shameful and often suppressed

memory, however, Stalins successors would attempt for some reform and the allowance of

commentary in the realm of literature.17The first of these successors was Nikita Khrushchev,

who officially came to power in 1955.18

Peter Kenez, a Professor of History at the University of

California, Santa Cruz, sees Khrushchev as a leader who could move amongst the common

people.19

After the death of Stalin, and under the guidance of Khrushchev, the intellectual society

within the Soviet Union experienced what has become known as the thaw.20

Changes were

made within the often restrictive system a process called de-Stalinization-- which allowed

every component of Soviet culture [to benefit].21

In 1964 Khrushchev was relieved of his

15Ibid., 65-66.

16Ibid.. 65.

17Jeffrey Brooks, Thank You, Comrade Stalin! Soviet Public Culture from Revolution to Cold War(Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 2000), 233.18Peter Kenez,A History of the Soviet Union from the Beginning to the End (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1999),189-190.

19Ibid., 188.

20Ibid., 191.

21Ibid.


6/23

Oroke 6

duties in the political world;22however, it should be believed that the SSF which emerged in

American anthropologies in the early 1960s were not a representation of the seemingly

suppressed society of the late 1930s, but were instead a literary representation of the feelings of

optimism which were prevalent in both Soviet politics and society in the 1950s and 1960s. These

writings are contextually accurate representations of the Soviet world they were produced in. As

Mary McAuley, University Lecturer in Politics at St. Hildas College, Oxford, points out: The

1950s were a time of enormous optimism and pride in Soviet achievement. Sputnik went up. The

standard of living rose. The reformers felt that socialism had a future.23

There were works of Soviet literature which were censored or suppressed from the

society; however, this point alone is not cause enough to believe the literature does not provide

substantial insight into the society which produced it. In twenty-first century America, for

example, censorship is a prevalent part of the society. The American Library Association looks

into books which have been publically challenged and banned within America; in 2009 alone

there were 460 books which were challenged by multiple sources: these sources are typically

parents who challenge the reading of book within their childs school.24

The viewing of the

Soviet Union as a suppressed society (in terms of literature production) is done in relation to

America at the time. However, even in the present day, America has shown it will quickly

suppress a variety of books for a variety of reasons.25

If what was produced in the Soviet Union

22Ibid., 210.

23McAuley, 72.

24American Library Association, Frequently Challenged Books: Statistics, American Library Association,

http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/challengesbytype/index.cfm (accessed

November 13, 2010).

25Other banned books in the United States are: To Kill a Mockingbird, on the grounds of alleged racism; the

Twilightseries, for its alleged portrayal of a religious viewpoint; The Color Purple, for its alleged overtly offensive

language; and The Catcher in the Rye, on the grounds of allegedly promoting an anti-family message. The top seven


7/23

Oroke 7

can not be taken as accurate depictions of the Soviet mindset, then would it also be fair to say the

literature in America, which is suppressed by some degree, should also be dismissed as being

accurate depictions? Certainly this is not the case; therefore, it is important for scholars to not

oversimplify the suppression of a society.

Apparent suppression skewed the analysis made of SSF, especially during the 1980s

when there was a large amount of critical analysis made in the field. One critic, John Griffiths,

BBC journalist and communication consultant, published his critique Three Tomorrow:

American, British and Soviet Science Fiction, in 1980.26

Griffiths made a series of errors in his

work, most of which stem from his very apparent ability to undermine his own words. For

instance in one section he describes how There is in Russia an atmosphere of enthusiasm and

public concern about science and technology.27

Just sections later Griffiths refers to the horrors

of applied utopianism in the Soviet Union, and refers to the Soviet Union as a real life

dystopia.28

It is incorrect to refer to the same society as both having elements of enthusiasm

and being a dystopia. Griffiths appears to be concentrating his analysis to heavily on the Stalinist

reign of the late 1930s and is failing to look at the Soviet Union during the Second World War or

in the post-Stalin era of the 1950s-1980s. He does not appropriately interpret the SSF of the early

1960s which looked at the idea of a co-existing system of political ideologies. At one point,

Griffiths makes what seems to be a very appropriate and strong critique of the SSF of the late

banned books in America are theHarryPotterseries, a few of the reasons for its challenging and banning are: the

alleged promotion of Satanism, a strong portrayal of violence, promotion of anti-family messages from several

characters, and the portrayal of a religious viewpoint. Two of the most humorously disturbing bans of all time may

be Captain Underpants, on the ground of being allegedly sexually explicit, and theMerriam Webster CollegiateDictionarybecause it contained offensive language.

26Griffiths, Three Tomorrows.

27Ibid., 62.

28Ibid., 105.


8/23

Oroke 8

1950s and early 1960s when stating how, Apparently orthodox Russian writers may, by

analogy, be suggesting dissent and experiment.29

This point shows a very different stance than

the one Griffiths had previously taken and is an accurate interpretation of the writings;

unfortunately for Griffiths his sentence did not end at experiment but he instead went on to

state: although the chances are that in most cases the suggestions are subconscious rather than

deliberate.30

Yet again, Griffiths undermines his point and shows a rather close-mindedness

approach in his interpretation of SSF: he allows for there to be no room for true optimism in the

society, an inappropriate claim to say the least. There were feelings of optimism in the Soviet

Union, and these feelings were expressed in the literature, Griffiths needs to better understand

this historical context when making his claims against literature in a seemingly suppressed

society.

Robert Magidoff, editor and introduction writer for the anthropologyRussian Science

Fiction, credits Alexander Belyaev as being the father of Soviet science fiction.31

Belyaev

wrote primarily before the Second World War, and the two short stories being discussed, Hoity

Toity and Invisible Light, were in fact written during Stalins reign of terror.32

If these stories

were written under what appeared to be extremely suppressed conditions then it would seem the

story should be an attempt to push forward with Stalinist propaganda, along with anti-

west/capitalist messages. This is not the case. Hoity Toity, one of the first pieces of SSF

29Ibid., 133.

30Ibid.

31Robert Magidoff, introduction toRussian Science Fiction(New York: New York University Press, 1964), 10.

32Alexander Belyaev, Hoity Toity, in Soviet Science Fiction, ed. Isaac Asimov (New York: Collier Books, 1962,

original pub. date 1930-1940), 19-86; Alexander Belyaev Invisible Light, in Russian Science Fiction, ed. RobertMagidoff (original pub. date 1938).


9/23

Oroke 9

translated into English, looks into the story of what appears to be an extremely intelligent

elephant. The elephant, named Hoity Toity, believes he has been mistreated and so he begins to

act out against his human rulers. Belyaev describes the scence of Hoity Toitys actions as, war

was declared between him [Hoity Toity] and the people, and he did his best to indicate that the

war was going to be costly for the people.33

This initial violence acts as interesting commentary

on the nature of humanity. Hoity Toity represents the other which humanity in the story is

faced with. In this instance the other and humanity engage in acts of violence against one

another. This suggests Belyaev believes it is humankinds natural instinct to act with violence

when faced with anything different. The historical context of Belyaev strongly suggests this

commentary on the nature of humanity is resemblance of the differences between the Soviet

Union and the western world. The story eventually changes its narrator and shifts over to the

elephant. The stylistic change puts humanity in the position of being the other. What the reader

soon learns about Hoity Toity is how on the surface he appears to be an elephant, while his brain

is in fact from a human. This suggests commentary on the deception of the outer surface of

something; and how, why humanity may be quick to write something or someone off as

unintelligent, the true understanding of intelligence takes extensive time to understand. Arguably

the most profound passage which truly comments on this idea of understanding the life of the

other is during the time when Hoity Toity is narrating and he states: I discovered by bitter

experience that being an elephant was no easy matter; the entire life of an animal as huge and

strong as the elephant consists of one constant struggle for existence which never abates for a

single moment.34

What is important with regards to this quotation is how the narrator is

33Belyaev, Hoity Toity, 28.

34Ibid., 68.


10/23

Oroke 10

discussing life when a being is actually placed into the position of the unknown, or the other. It

suggests the narrator gained a completely altered perspective when he went from being an entity

of humankind, to an entity of that which humankind was after. In the context of East-West

relationships, it is evident that Belyaev appears to be writing to his Soviet audience, and urging

them to not be so quick to judge that which is different until they have personally experienced

what being different means. Belyaev makes a discussion which is relevant to the world stage and

provides a different perspective on life and civilization. The call for some form of coexistence is

an open challenge against Stalinist ideology, not some form of Communist propaganda.

Another one of Belyaevs works, Invisible Light, tells a story of an individual, Dubel,

who requires eye surgery and decides to go to a slightly mysterious doctor. This doctor, Dr.

Kruse, makes it so Dubel can see electrical currents.35

As it is seen in the story Dr. Kruse utilizes

science to take Dubel from the darkness and lead him into the light. The other in the story is

the scientific capabilities of Dr. Kruse. Dubel thus plays a role in representing not only the power

of science but also how embracing of the other can provide someone who lives in a collective

society with some form of individualism. The story takes a turn when after Dubel has the eye-

surgery redone and becomes a wage-earner once more.36

Dubel has a change of heart and asks

Dr. Kruse to make [him] blind forever,37

Dr. Kruse refuses on the grounds of it no longer being

necessary. This idea of seeking out some form of individual identity completely contradicts with

the Soviet teachings of the time, especially under Joseph Stalin. Therefore, the story is not

35Belyeav, Invisible Light, 23.

36Ibid., 28.

37Ibid., 29.


11/23

Oroke 11

simply Soviet propaganda, but is instead a call for cooperation to exist within a society which

contains both individuals and scientific excellence.

Arkady and Boris Strugatsky are often seen as the Soviet writers who pushed the

boundaries of the ideological battle they were engaged in.38In 1958 the Strugasktys wrote

Spontaneous Reflex,39

a story which looks into the actions of a robot known as Urm (Universal

Robot Machine). The general premise is that Urm is a robot who was given a passion for

experiment, a passion to learn about what is new.40

Urm is given the ability of spontaneous

reflex which allows him to react to various situations. Scientists produced Urm in order to have

to robot venture to unexplored planets so that people will not have to take the risk.41

However, Urm begins to be too curious and puts himself into bad situations, requiring the

scientists to shut him down.42

The story is given from both the perspective of Urm and the

scientists. This narration style challenges the perception of the reader and forces them to

understand the varying interpretations behind all actions and events. In the context of 1958 and

the cold war, this is a monumental idea in discussing how both the Soviets and Americans had

perceptions of each other, and yet those perceptions failed to have much factual evidence behind

them. The story is a challenge to perception and a challenge to misinterpreting the actions of

another. The ideas of the story are a clear callout against official Soviet ideology of the time.

"#Griffiths, 180.

39Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, Spontaneous Reflex, inSoviet Science Fiction(original pub. date 1958) 89-111.

40Ibid., 110-111.

41Ibid., 111.

42Ibid., 108.


12/23

Oroke 12

In the 1960 story Six Matches the Strugatsky brothers utilize the context of the

technological race between the Soviets and the Americans to fuel their commentary on the

implications behind the continuous advancement of technology.43

The general idea of the story is

how one scientist named Andrei Komlin is attempting to create a technological device which will

allow him to control human nature. The key idea being addressed is how humankind is precious

and the pursuit of technology should not jeopardize the life of any human. This point is discussed

when the Inspector makes a comment to the Director of the science facility: Look here, we are a

rich country, the richest in the world. We give you scientists any amount of apparatus, all of the

experimental animals you want and everything else you need for your work. Then why do you

permit your people to take such risks? You have no right to be careless about human life.44

While this point does support the communist ideology of the supremacy of man,45

it should also

be seen as general commentary on the pursuit of technology as a whole. The Soviet Union and

United States were engaged in an arms race in which the technology being produced was meant

to destroy the greatest amount of people in the shortest amount of time. The Strugatskys see this

situation as very dangerous and call out the actions of scientists within both the Soviet Union and

the United States. Towards the conclusion of the story a final comment is made on the

importance of life over science: In our time our lives are far more precious to us than the most

breath-taking discoveries.46

The Strugatskys clearly seek a world society which promotes life,

43Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, Six Matches, inMore Soviet Science Fiction(original pub. date 1960) 169-190.

44Ibid., 181.

45Griffiths, 143.

46Six Matches, 189.


13/23

Oroke 13

rather than dangerous competition. Yet again, this commentary on humankind in a universal

sense is a clear counter to official Soviet ideology.

Victor Saparin utilizes the subtly provocative story of The Magic Shoes47

in order to

put make his own commentary on Soviet-American relations. The story describes a scientist who

creates shoes which have the ability to grow themselves, and thus dont need to be repaired or

replaced. However, the important element of the story exists in the odd relationship between the

characters of Antonia Ignatievna and Marya Petrovna. Antonia is the mother of Petya, the boy

who was given the magic shoes. Marya is their neighbor and she believes Antonia is constantly

buying new shoes for Petya. The story concludes with Antonia coming to a profound realization:

Only then did Antonia Ignatievna understand that she would never prove anything to Marya

Petronva, and that she had worried in vain about her opinion.48

American and Soviet relations

were at the point in the 1960s where it seemed neither side could understand the others

viewpoint. What Saparin seems to suggest is that each community did not develop for purely

internal reasons, but instead developed to try and gain acceptance and support from the world-

wide community. Saparin believes this ideology of development is incorrect and only furthers

the existing ideological divide between the nations. Each society should strive to better itself out

of an internal obligation (something comparable to John Lockes social contract49

); the

community should not be brought under the will of an outsider. Saparins viewpoint also leads to

the idea of coexistence in the world. Saparin does not state that either Antonia nor Marya need to

alter their viewpoint, instead he suggests how each viewpoint can coexist without being

47Victor Saparin, The Magic Shoes, inRussian Science Fiction, 31-38.

48Ibid., 38.

49John Locke, The Second Treatise on Civil Government(New York: Prometheus Books, 1986), 55.


14/23

Oroke 14

detrimental to the society at large. Saparin intentionally puts forth a viewpoint which challenges

official Soviet belief.

To briefly mention another one of Saparins works, this one entitled The Trial of

Tantalus,50Saparin creates a world where microbes are held as prisoners in order to prevent any

form of disease. The microbes are set up as the other which humankind comes in contact with.

The response to this other is seen as very negatively aggressive; however one character, named

Svensen, encourages society to rethink their blatant pessimism. Svensen in fact makes the point,

Microbes, like men, are neither wholly bad nor wholly good.51

Saparin uses Svensen to

comment on the cold war mindset in which each side pictured the other as evil and themselves as

good. Saparin calls this mindset into question and encourages society to rethink their conception

of the other, whether it is the Soviets view of Americans or vise-versa. The idea of rethinking

a preconceived notion is a direct challenge to Soviet propaganda and official Soviet ideology.

Alexander Kazantsev uses a two part story in order to convey Soviet ideology, and also to

make very strong claims for coexistence.

52

In the first part of the story, entitled A Visitor from

Outer Space, the characters look into the plausibility behind a Martian having landed on Earth.

Kazantsev uses a variety of viewpoints in order to make commentary on the idea of Martians

attempting to seize Earth. The captain provides his frustration when stating: As if we hadnt

enough Hitlers, Trumans, and MacArthurs . . . now we have to cope also with Martians!53

50Victor Saparin, The Trial of Tantalus, in More Soviet Science Fiction, 123-150.

51Ibid., 128.

52Alexander Kazantsev, A Visitor from Outer Space, in Soviet Science Fiction(original pub. date 1958), 115-134;

Alexander Kazantsev The Martian, in Soviet Science Fiction(original pub. date 1958), 135-150.

53A Visitor from Outer Space, 126.


15/23

Oroke 15

While this point does have a clear anti-western message, the following quotation by Vasilyev,

the ships geographer, makes a rather different point on the subject:

I think youre wrong. Wells and other Western writers when they imagine the worldscoming together, can only think in terms of invasions and wars. To my mind, knowing

the state of things as regards to water on Marswe can draw certain conclusions abouttheir social system which promotes the carrying out of planned economy on the scale of

the entire planet.54

While this passage also seems to promote some anti-western messages, that is not the core

element of the statement. Instead the Vasilyev seems more focused on how a fully developed

society in the future can exist outside of the state of war. The imagined society is a communal

one based on communist principals; however, this fact should not take away from the idea of the

ability of Soviets and Americans to eventually coexist peacefully. The much more important

commentary on Soviet-American relationships was made in the second part of the story which is

entitled The Martian. This story discusses the diary which was left behind by the Martian who

landed on Earth. The overall idea is that this diary serves as a third person perspective on the

world. The narrator of The Martian provides the following quotation when discussing the

Martian: what did he think of those who decided arguments by shedding blood, who compelled

people to work for them by force, who made some people happy, others miserable?55

Kazantsev

is stating how there is a better way to deal with disagreements which doesnt lead to war.

Kazantsev is openly pushing for the current tension between the Soviet and Americans to be

solved by means of cooperation rather than fighting in yet another war which will dominate the

world stage. Kazantsevs message is meant for the world audience, not simply the Soviet one. He

54Ibid.

55The Martian, 145.


16/23

Oroke 16

is attempting to break down the imaginary boarders which were put up under the reign of Stalin,

and counteract official Soviet belief.

Valentina Zhuraveleva utilizes strong quotations in her two stories, Stone from the

Stars and The Astronaut56in order to make a strong commentary on the future of society and

cold war tension. Arguably the single most important quote within The Astronaut is: Forward

in the face of the impossible.57

This quote has large implications on the global scale.

Zhuraveleva is speaking to the audience of the world and encouraging them to push through all

the obstacles which stand in front of them. In the context of the 1960s these obstacles are both

cold war tension and overcoming the turmoil which came out of the experience of two world

wars in the same century. In Stone from the Stars Zhuravleva makes another call out to the

world when she has one of her characters state: We are too engrossed in what we are doing in

the present to foresee the shape of things to come.58

Zhuravleva is commenting on

accountability and how the Soviets and the Americans need to understand how their actions in

the present moment will have consequences for future generations. Zhuravleva utilizes the forum

of science fiction within her historical context in order to comment on the importance of

bettering Soviet-American relations, with the intention of creating a more coherent civilization in

the future. The thought of coherency was yet another challenge to Soviet-Stalinist ideology, and

should be viewed as a break away from governmental constraints.

56Valentina Zhuraveleva, The Astronaut, inRussian Science Fiction(original pub. date 1960), 204-217; Valentina

Zhuraveleva Stone from the Stars, inMore Soviet Science Fiction(original pub. date 1959), 151-168.

57The Astronaut, 210.

58Stone from the Stars, 161.


17/23

Oroke 17

Anatoly Dnieprov is the writer of the highly controversial story The Maxwell

Equation.59

There are two key parts to this story which are important when trying to understand

the message which Dnieprov was intending to get across. First off, the enemy in the story is a

Nazi-German scientist. In the historical context of 1960, Germany had not yet overcome its

identity as a common enemy between the Soviet Union and the United States, thus Dnieprov is

able to have a receptive audience in the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. It seems it would have been just as

easy to the make the evil scientist an American, but instead Dnieprov consciously chose to have

this character be German. Secondly, and even more important, is the manner in which the hero

overcomes the suppression which he is experiencing. The German scientist, Kraftstudt, is

running a brainwashing machine which allows him to control the emotions and work habits of

individuals. The protagonist character, Professor Rauch, first uses his mental toughness to

overcome the attempt at being brainwashed. Rauch takes it on as his personal mission to destroy

the brainwashing machine. In order to this, Rauch utilizes a graphite pencil.60

This use of a

pencil is symbolic because it represents the weapon of any writer. Dnieprov take the simple

instrument of a pencil and gives it even greater significance. He appears to believe the people

who live in a suppressed system must use the tool of the pencil in order to overcome the

suppression: the pencil is mightier than the sword. Dnieprov was sending his message to both his

fellow Soviets and the Americans. He believes both societies live under a form of suppression

caused by the governments brainwashing their citizens. He seems to make a call to the people to

acknowledge this act of suppression and then to overcome it. This is a powerful piece of work

59Anatoly Dnieprov, The Maxwell Equation, inRussian Science Fiction(original pub. date 1960), 169-203.

60Ibid., 200.


18/23

Oroke 18

against the use of propaganda by todays standards and is even more powerful in the context of

1960.

The Heart of the Serpent by Ivan Yefremov61

looks at a crew of eight people who are

traveling through space in hope of exploring unknown places. During this exploration the crew

comes across an alien spaceship and has an encounter with the other ships crew. In this story it

is clear the aliens are the other with which humankind must deal with. A key aspect in the

story is how the humans encounter with the alien is an extremely peaceful and insightful

encounter. Yefremov comments on how humans naturally expect the other to be extremely

different from them; however, in the characters first encounter is vastly different from this

notion: A gasp of astonishment escaped the Earthmen. They could hardly believe their eyes. In

his heart of hearts each had expected something extraordinary, something supernatural. Because

of this, the close resemblance of the strangers to themselves struck them as a miracle.62

With the

historical context of 1959 Yefremov uses this passage as a potential illustration for how a

meeting between the Soviet people and the American people may go. It would seem each group

is expecting the other to be some evil being, because it is what they have been told through

governmental propaganda, in reality the two sides would be shocked to see just how similar one

another are. Yefremov uses the conclusion of his story to talk about the beauty of humankind, the

words of the narrator illustrate this several times, one of these sections being: The most valuable

thing in any civilization, on any star, in any island universe, indeed the Universe as a whole, was

Man, his reason, emotions, strength and beauty--his life.63

Yefremov takes the stage of science

61Ivan Yefremov, The Heart of the Serpent, in More Soviet Science Fiction (original pub. date 1959), 19-88.

62Ibid., 71.

63Ibid., 83.


19/23

Oroke 19

fiction writing as his forum to discuss his love for humankind. It would seem Yefremov believes

there is nothing which should get in the way of disrupting the development of humankind, be it

war or ideological differences. Yefremovs faith in the might of human reason, may just be his

call for peace to the Soviets and Americans alike.64

Whether it is always done fully consciously or not, during the late 1950s and early 1960s,

the Soviet authors were talking to America. They seemed to be saying: you do not understand

our society, you do not understand the socialist system which we live in. There is hope in our

society. You have also been brainwashed, so please open up your mind to the world we both

inhabit. Humankind constantly has a misinterpretation of the other, which often times will

lead to violent confrontations. Isaac Asimov illustrates this misconception well in his

introduction within Soviet Science Fictionby stating: Obviously, if the Soviets are deep, dark

villains (as many Americans believe) they arent aware of it themselves, but picture themselves

as rather nice fellows.65

In todays setting, it is important to think in terms of the global society.

The confrontation with the other is something which an individual will have to encounter on a

daily basis. Therefore, it is important to not view this other in negative terms, but instead

understand how both beings are immensely similar and can coexist within a society, despite what

some may say. The Soviet writers of fifty years ago preached the same messages which people

fail to fully understand today: coexistence is possible if the right attitude towards the other is

present. In the words of Judith Merril, editor of the SSF collectionPath into the Unknownpoints

out, it is time we all understood that the Aliens are Human after all.66

64Ibid., 86.

65Asimov, Soviet Science Fiction, 13.

66Juddith Merril,Path Into the Unknown, 7.


20/23

Oroke 20

Works Citied

American Library Association. Frequently Challenged Books: Statistics. American Library

Association. http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/

challengesbytype/index.cfm. (accessed November 13, 2010).

Asimov, Isaac. Introduction to Soviet Science Fiction. New York: Collier Books, 1962.

------. Introduction toMore Soviet Science Fiction. New York: Collier Books, 1962.

Belayev, Alexander. Hoity Toity. In Soviet Science Fiction, edited by Isaac Asimov, 19-86.

New York: Collier Books, 1962 (original pub. date of story between 1930-1940).

------. Invisible Light. InRussian Science Fiction, edited by Robert Magidoff, 19-30. New

York: New York University Press, 1964 (original pub. date of story 1938).

Brooks, Jeffrey. Thank You, Comrade Stalin! Soviet Public Culture from Revolution to Cold

War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000.

Casier, Tom. The Shattered Horizon How Ideology Mattered to Soviet Politics. Studies in

Eastern European Thought, Vol. 51, No. 1 (March, 1999): 35-59.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20099693 (accessed October 25, 2010).

Dnieprov, Anatoly. The Maxwell Equation. InRussian Science Fiction, edited by Robert

Magidoff, 169-203. New York: New York University Press, 1964 (original pub. date of

the story 1960).

------. Siema. InMore Soviet Science Fiction, edited by Isaac Asimov, 89-122. New York:

Collier Books, 1962.

Gaulin, Pam. Banned Books Week: 10 banned books you might not expect. Yahoo! News.

Entry posted September 24, 2010. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20100924/en_ac/6827290

_10_surprisingly_banned_books. (accessed November 13, 2010).

Glad, John.Extrapolations from Dystopia: a Critical Study of Soviet Science Fiction. New

Jersey Kingston Press, 1981.

Gomel, Elana. Gods like Men: Soviet Science Fiction and the Utopian Self. Science Fiction


21/23

Oroke 21

Studies, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Nov. 2004): 358-377. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4241283

(accessed October 25, 2010).

Griffiths, John. Three Tomorrows: American, British, and Soviet Science Fiction. New Jersey:

Barnes and Noble Books, 1980.

Hirsch, Francine.Empire of Nations: Ethnographic Knowledge and the Making of the Soviet

Union. New York: Cornell University Press, 2005.

Kazantsev, Alexander. The Martian. In Soviet Science Fiction, edited by Isaac Asimov, 135-

150. New York: Collier Books, 1962 (original pub. date of the story 1958).

------. A Visitor from Outer Space. In Soviet Science Fiction, edited by Isaac Asimov, 115-134.

New York: Collier Books, 1962 (original pub. date of the story 1958).

Kenez, Peter.A History of the Soviet Union from the Beginning to the End. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Kiernana, Bette. A Systems Perspective on Soviet-American Relations.Political Psychology,

Vol. 8, No. 2 (June 1987) 245-247. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3791303 (November 12,

2010.

Lenoe, Matthew. Closterto the Masses: Stalinist Culture, Social Revolution, and Soviet

Newspapers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Locke, John. The Second Treatise on Civil Government, Amherst, New York: Prometheus

Books, 1986.

Magidoff, Robert. Introduction to Russian Science Fiction. New York: New York University

Press, 1964.

Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. The Communist Manifesto. New York: International

Publishers, 2007.

McAuley, Mary. Soviet Politics 1917-1991. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Merril, Judith. Introduction toPath Into the Unknown: The Best of Soviet Science Fiction.

New York: Delacorte Press, 1968.


22/23

Oroke 22

Nudelman, Rafail. Soviet Science Fiction and the Ideology of Soviet Society. Soviet

Fiction Studies, Vol. 16, no. 1 (March 1989) 38-66. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4239917

(accessed October 11, 2010).

Saparin, Victor. The Magic Shoes. InRussian Science Fiction, edited by Robert Magidoff,

31-38. New York: New York University Press, 1964.

------. The Trial of Tantalus. InMore Soviet Science Fiction, edited by Isaac Asimov, 123-150.

New York; Collier Books, 1962.

Strugatsky, Arkady and Boris. An Emergency Case.In Path Into the Unknown: The Best of

Soviet Science Fiction, edited by Judith Merril, 89-108. New York: Delacorte Press,

1968 (original pub. date of story 1960).

------. Six Matches. InMore Soviet Science Fiction, edited by Isaac Asimov, 169-190 New

York: Collier Books, 1962 (original pub. date of story 1960).

------. Spontaneous Reflex. In Soviet Science Fiction, edited by Isaac Asimov, 89-111. New

York: Collier Books, 1962 (original pub. date of story 1958).

Suny, Ronald Grigor. The Soviet Experiment: Russia, The USSR, and the Successor States.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Swayze, Harold.Political Control of Literature in the USSR, 1946-1959. Cambridge, Mass.:

Harvard University Press, 1962.

Tolstoy, Alexei N.Aelita, translated by Theodore Sturgeon. New York: Macmillian Publishing,

1981.

Varshavsky, Ilya. The Conflict.In Path Into the Unknown: The Best of Soviet Science Fiction,

edited by Judith Merril, 8-10. New York: Delacorte Press, 1968 (original pub. date of

the story 1964).

------. Robby. InPath Into the Unknown: The Best of Soviet Science Fiction, edited by Judith

Merril, 11-20. New York: Delacorte Press, 1968 (original pub. date of the story 1964).

Yefremov, Ivan. The Heart of the Serpent. InMoreSoviet Science Fiction, edited by Isaac


23/23

Oroke 23

Asimov, 19-88. New York: Collier Books, 1962 (original pub. date of the story 1959).

------. Shadows of the Past. InRussian Science Fiction, edited by Robert Magidoff, 67-101.

New York: New York University Press, 1964.

Zhuravleva, Valentina. The Astronaut. InRussian Science Fiction, edited by Robert Magidoff,

204-217. New York: New York University Press, 1964 (original pub. date of the story

1960).

------. Stone from the Stars. InMore Soviet Science Fiction, edited by Isaac Asimov, 151-168.

New York: Collier Books, 1962 (original pub. date of the story 1959).

Documents

Oroke on SovietSF