I am a literary giant in Russia

Chapter 115 "Contemporary Heroes" and the Superfluous Man

A few days after returning from Pletnyov's place, Mikhail's application to continue his studies also came back quickly: his application was approved, and he was allowed to continue his enrollment.

The procedures were legal and compliant, and in principle, they shouldn't have been rejected. However, probably because he encountered a mediocre clerk, Mikhail's application was delayed indefinitely until he went to Pletnyov. Only then did the clerk give him a look that seemed to say, "You should have said so earlier if you had such connections!"

Perhaps because he is still too young, Mikhail has not yet fully grasped the current social situation in Russia.

In fact, similar corruption had long been lurking in all institutions of Russian society. For example, when Dostoevsky was admitted to the Military Engineering Academy, his brother was rejected because he was "frail and sickly." Although Dostoevsky did very well on the exam, he still did not receive a free place to study.

Although the school promised such a free spot when Lao Tuo's father submitted the application for his child, he later learned that it was reserved for students who would "give gifts" to the examiners.

"How corrupt!" Dostoevsky wrote indignantly in a letter to his father. "We who are so frugal have to pay tuition, while the children of the rich don't."

This phenomenon exists in every era and country. When officials are in a good mood and care about appearances, they might create elaborate pretexts for awarding extra points for special talents, special admissions through competitions, or publishing papers in top journals to achieve their goals. But when officials are in a bad mood, they won't even bother pretending; they'll take all the allowances, pensions, and poverty subsidies!

When a country is generally doing well, creating pretexts is a common tactic. But when everyone stops pretending and takes certain things for granted, then there's a high probability that something is really wrong.

In modern Russia, bribery and accepting bribes are a very common phenomenon. In "A Hunter's Sketches," which will be completed after the old man, he describes a landowner who worked as a servant for forty years before finally obtaining a noble title. He writes: "He was a kind and honest man who only accepted bribes according to his 'position'—from ten kopeks to two rubles."

Later, this situation evolved to the point that officials even tamed the farmers. Officials who accepted bribes to do favors were called good officials, while those who strictly adhered to regulations and did not take a penny were instead condemned as oppressors.

However, it must be said that the idea that an official who can get things done for money is a good official still seems to hold true even more than a hundred years later. It's unclear whether this is out of helplessness or a deep-seated thought like, "If I were in that position..."

Now that this problem has been solved, Mikhail can simply choose a suitable day to start school.

However, before that, a new problem arose, roughly as Nekrasov had told Mikhail:
"Mikhail, I have some bad news. Your latest humorous and witty short story has been rejected by the censor. At first, he was inexplicably furious and rejected almost half of your article. But then, for some reason, he suddenly withdrew his initial rejection and only thought that some parts needed to be deleted and revised."

Otherwise, even if he approves it here, there's a high chance of problems arising later.

Mikhail: “?”

Oh no, the censor is also trying to set me up, ruining my dream of publishing.
To be honest, Nekrasov was quite puzzled when he first received the notification. After all, although the reviewer had been nominally an editor and received a fairly generous annual salary, the cooperation had been pleasant overall, and some articles with slightly radical tendencies had been approved.

Why the sudden change of heart?

But after he finished reading the short story that he hadn't had time to read due to being too busy, he couldn't help but laugh for a while. At the same time, he was also surprised that the examiner had withdrawn his initial rejection.

In a sense, this is blatant mockery.

But if we look at it from a broader perspective, isn't "The Man in the Case" just about a specific group of people?
Are people who firmly believe they are living the right life considered trapped in a shell? And are people who completely believe their environment is normal also considered trapped in a shell?

Are people who completely deny their own country as well as those who wholeheartedly love their country also considered "people trapped in a shell" in another sense?
In short, perhaps everyone is trapped in a shell to some extent. This novel uses a cartoonish, exaggerated style to depict this phenomenon. And when placed in the context of Russian reality, this "people trapped in shells" clearly has a more specific meaning.

And people like this in real life could undoubtedly be hurt by this novel, just like the one about the chameleon.

That is probably why, although the censor Nikichenko retracted his initial complete rejection, he still stated: "It is acceptable to depict such gentlemen, but it is absolutely unacceptable to use them so obviously as objects of satire! You must know that in a society like ours, such gentlemen are the most upright! They are also the gentlemen that the government likes the most. Treating them in this way, even in literature, is not a wise thing to do."

Nekrasov: “?”

So you mean it's okay if it's not too obvious?
Perhaps outside of universities, this examiner isn't so rigid.

In response to such opinions, Mikhail said, "Huh? Where's the irony? Where's the criticism? I don't see it."

Nekrasov and Nikichenko, who had learned of this, were both speechless.

Mikhail is truly a master of feigning ignorance!
Despite his cleverness, Mikhail eventually made some changes. However, according to censor Nikkichenko, Mikhail's modifications were only slightly subtle; it seemed that nothing was missing.

However, if you really want to say something, you could say it to this extent.

As I said before, the situation is not too severe at this time, and it has not directly touched on any sensitive issues, nor has it made fun of landlords or nobles. The only danger is that it may still arouse the hatred of some people.

Mikhail's response was: "To be honest, this work is not intended to insult anyone, nor is it meant to offend any gentleman. It is merely to expose a corner of society in order to draw attention to its healing. If it can only play a small role, that is enough to make people feel comforted."

The fact that Mikhail could write such a novel can only be attributed to the youthful exuberance of Nikichenko.

Mikhail's reply was undoubtedly saying, "What kind of young person isn't full of vigor?!" Although he was long past the age of youthful passion, Nikichenko was still quite moved by Mikhail's words. After pondering for a while, Nikichenko still approved the novel.

At first, he was indeed a little annoyed, but when the image of the gentleman who would wear rain boots, carry an umbrella, and always wear a warm cotton coat, even on the scorching sun, kept flashing through his mind, he had to admit that it was indeed a wonderful novel.

Shortly after the novel was approved, Nikichenko learned from rumors that the young magazine owner was about to finish his studies and go to St. Petersburg Imperial University, where he taught. Upon hearing this news, Nikichenko was stunned for a while, but when he heard that the other party was a law student, he couldn't help but breathe a sigh of relief.

Thankfully, if he's a law student, the Russian laws and regulations alone will keep him busy for a while, so he probably won't have time to do anything else.

Even if he did it, it wouldn't have anything to do with Nikichenko, after all, he's a professor of literary history.
Once this matter was resolved, Mikhail devoted himself entirely to the commentary he had promised Belinsky.

For Mikhail, a former graduate student, writing papers and commentaries is not a difficult task. In fact, he does have some very advanced theories that could leave the current commentary community speechless.

However, later commentaries are somewhat different from contemporary Russian commentaries. Some later commentaries tend to use obscure language and utter flowery, flattering remarks, while Belinsky's commentaries, in this era and in particular, are more approachable and personal in their expression.

As Belinsky often expressed in his commentary on Lermontov's "A Hero of Our Time": "But you, dear reader, surely won't part ways with this old child so coldly and heartlessly? He is so kind."

This is sometimes the source of the charm of his commentary articles.

In short, since we're going to write commentary articles, it's best to learn from and consult with the top experts of this era.

When it comes to writing critical essays, one thing is definitely worth noting: blindly applying a certain theory or starting from a fixed mindset often leads to situations like this: Okay, this novel symbolizes the demise of feudal aristocratic power and the rise of a new class. Okay, this novel is unpatriotic, trash. Okay, this novel was written by a male author, contains disrespectful descriptions of women, and is purely "old-fashioned literature."

These perspectives can sometimes offer a new angle for interpreting literature, but in reality, interpreting literature solely from a single perspective and concept is quite meaningless.

True literary works are often rich in content. Therefore, when commenting on such literary works, even if it is difficult to explain the entire work in a limited space, it should not be too simplistic or filled with prejudice.

So after deciding to write such an article, Mikhail also took the time to study Pushkin's "Eugene Onegin" and Lermontov's "A Hero of Our Time" several more times. In the process, he also inquired about their character and deeds.

Since the era wasn't too long ago, a considerable number of people around Mikhail had personally seen Pushkin and Lermontov. Among them, Belinsky and others met Lermontov quite often, since many of Lermontov's poems and novels were published in "Chronicles of the Fatherland".

While Lermontov and his novel "A Hero of Our Time" are relatively unknown in later generations, his name was widely recognized in Russia during that period.

Tolstoy once lamented, "If Lermontov were alive, neither Dostoevsky nor I would need to exist."

Chekhov said, "I can't understand how a child could create such a work. Ah, if he could write something like this, he could die in peace!"

Of course, there are elements of politeness and regret in these remarks, but their praise for "A Hero in Our Time" is genuine. And this kind of work can, to some extent, form a contrast with another well-known work, "How the Steel Was Tempered".

As for the specifics, let's leave that for later.

In short, after making thorough preparations, Mikhail began to try to complete this commentary.

The experience gained from Belinsky, frankly, cannot be entirely copied, since, in addition to normal literary criticism, Belinsky also said:
“Look here, Mikhail. When you talk about this part of the work, how can you not talk about our terrible society and those terrible people? And when you get to this part, how can you not talk about the narrow-mindedness and despicable nature of our Russian government? And who wouldn’t feel a deep-seated dissatisfaction with our Russian autocracy here?”

Mikhail: “.”

That's too much torture, Lao Bie. You're going to be tortured much more severely than I am.

No wonder when your article reaches the reviewer, their reaction is often just mumbling something like, "Not approved, not approved, all of them are not approved!"

However, Mikhail's intention was more to present a certain phenomenon in literature. Of course, if some young people wanted to do something after reading it, Mikhail felt that it was not impossible.

Mikhail spent a lot of time polishing this article, and fortunately, it was eventually completed smoothly.

After writing it, Mikhail didn't confidently submit it to a magazine right away. Instead, he took it to Belinsky for his advice.

After all, Belinsky was considered quite authoritative in the field of literary criticism, and he was naturally very interested in and willing to read Mikhail's literary reviews. However, before reading them, Belinsky had a certain expectation.

Faced with an unparalleled genius like Mikhail, even if this is his first time writing a commentary, he should not be underestimated. However, at the same time, perhaps we shouldn't have too high expectations.

With this in mind, Belinsky soon saw the title of this literary review: "The Superfluous Man".

(End of this chapter)