Professor David Peimer
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Part 2
Summary
Professor David Peimer continues to explore the Russian writer’s impact on the world, closely examining Solzhenitsyn’s 3-volume work The Gulag Archipelago (1973)and Two Hundred Years Together (2001), in which he examines the history of the relationship between Imperial Russia and the Jews.
Professor David Peimer
David Peimer is a professor of theatre and performance studies in the UK. He has taught at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, and New York University (Global Division), and was a Fulbright Scholar at Columbia University. Born in South Africa, David has won numerous awards for playwriting and directing. He has written eleven plays and directed forty in places like South Africa, New York, Brussels, London, Berlin, Zulu Kingdom, Athens, and more. His writing has been published widely and he is the editor of Armed Response: Plays from South Africa (2009) and the interactive digital book Theatre in the Camps (2012). He is on the board of the Pinter Centre in London.
Yes. Writing about it. Yeah, I think because it’s, again, it’s testimonial and it’s witness writing or coming from the position of witness and testimony and memory. There’s another whole genre which is memory in literature. You know, not autobiography, but memory because memory itself is not necessarily autobiography. Autobiography is much more concerned with historical facts of a person’s life. But memory is very different. As we all know, our memories jump. You know, exaggerate things, minimise things, change, et cetera. So memory is moving more towards the fictionalised history, if you like. It’s become, again with Primo, you know, I can’t say how much is exact fact and exactly not, but I think it, he is part of it, you know, part of this genre of writing in literature. Because Primo is not only seen as an historian, but a remarkable writer, a great writer, you know, and the periodic tables and so on, no doubt. Because I think you have to crystallise space and time in a novel and in a play and a movie. In autobiography and factual writing, you don’t.
Fascinatingly, Solzhenitsyn heavily attacked the Russian communist around the time of the ’67 war and the big change in the Soviet attitude towards Israel and Jewish people that in his opinion happened certainly after the 67 war. They were furious with the Egyptians and others for losing it. But his view of Zionism was he hated the equation of Zionism and antisemitism, Israel and Jewish people. And in the book, he argues vehemently against that endless putting together of Zionism and racism and antisemite, all the rest of it, et cetera. And Zionism has nothing to do with it. Zionism is an amazing achievement because of self-pride of Jewish revival, of Jewish self-belief, nationalism. He goes into it all and he is vehement against the link with that and racism and antisemitism. He sees it as as antisemitic. You know, he’s totally pro-Zionism, basically.
Well, there has been discussion. I mean, Ellie Vessel’s “Night”, as I’m sure everyone knows, was I think in the beginning about 800 pages long, and then together with the help of Mariak and others, cut it radically. It’s 120, 630 something pages, if I’m right. So how much has taken out, how much has kept in a, is there any fictionalised history in that? Is it’s strictly historically factual? I think that’s for another whole discussion, but testimonial literature involves this very debate and I think it’s a very rich one. And I don’t think in the anyone can be purist. Why? Because for a writer, they’re dealing with memory. For a historian, they’re dealing with historical facts. So it’s a very different approach and I think both feed each other, you know, and I would treasure both. Absolutely.