Here there are various issues, and these issues are of grave importance for the development of literature. I want to express myself on an issue that has nothing to do with Avdeenko's book—on the approach to literature. There is an approach to literature that is truthful and objective. This truthful and objective approach, does it mean that it may or must be impartial—simply draw or photograph? Can you place a living person, a writer who wants to be truthful and objective, on the same footing as a camera? By no means. That means truthfulness and objectivity have to be living, not impassive. This is a living person, he sympathizes with someone, is not particularly taken by one of his heroes. This means truthfulness and objectivity are truthfulness and objectivity that serve some class.

Plekhanov said that literature cannot exhibit a tendency [sic],

In the course of revision, the text was corrected to read: “cannot fail to exhibit a tendency.”

but when he decoded this, it emerged that literature has to serve certain conditions, a certain class, a certain society. Therefore, literature cannot be a camera. That's not how truthfulness should be understood. There cannot be literature without passion, it sympathizes with someone, despises someone. I think that we must approach an assessment of literature from this point of view—from the point of view of truthfulness and objectivity.

There is a demand for works to represent the enemy for us in all his most important aspects. Is this right or wrong? Wrong. There are different ways of writing—the way of Gogol, or of Shakespeare. They have outstanding heroes—negative and positive. When you read Shakespeare or Gogol, or Griboedov, you find one hero with negative features. All the negative features are concentrated in one individual. I would prefer a different manner of writing—the manner of Chekhov, who has no heroes but rather gray people who nevertheless reflect the main course of life. This is another manner of writing.

I would prefer we were given enemies not as monsters but as people hostile to our society but not lacking all human traits. The very worst scoundrel has human traits, he loves someone, respects someone, wants to sacrifice himself for someone. He has some human qualities. I would prefer it if enemies were shown to be strong. What would be the advantage if we declared loudly that there was a struggle of capitalism with socialism and suddenly smashed something puny. And the enemies made a lot of noise about not being so weak. Could it be that there were no strong people? Why not depict Bukharin,

In preparation of a fair copy, “Miliukov” was substituted.

no matter how monstrous he was, yet he has some human features. Trotsky is an enemy, but he is

In preparation of a fair copy, the word “was” was substituted.

a capable person, undoubtedly he should be depicted as an enemy with negative features, but as one who also has positive qualities because undoubtedly he had them.

Here my concern is not at all that Avdeenko depicts enemies decently, but that he leaves our brother in the shadow. We need truthfulness depicting the enemy in a full-fledged way, not only with negative traits but with positive traits as well, which were, for example, persistence, consistency, the daring to go against society. These traits are attractive, so why not depict them?

Peering into [other's] souls is not my business, but I don't want to be naive. I think that he [Avdeenko] is someone of the hostile rabble of Sarkisov and Kabakov, and he has verbal exchanges with our enemies: “I'm living among fools, still they let my works through, they don't notice, I get money, and whoever needs to will understand, as to the fools—to hell with them, let them remain fools.”