The article is devoted to some problems of commenting on the works of one of the major writers in the modern literary process, Victor Pelevin. His work “The Yellow Arrow” (1993) was chosen as an example. Pelevin’s tale is a polycode structure that is built on balancing between aesthetic (sacral, esoteric) and mass (profiled, exoteric) knowledge, resulting in the effect of multilayered text organization focused on the widest possible range of readers. The story, addressed to a mass reader with completely different level of education and culture, age index, is saturated with various realities of the 1980s - 1990s era. For the 1990s reader, most of them did not require their explanation because they constituted one’s daily experience of the time. However, when reprinting Pelevin’s works at present it is necessary to take into account the rapid development of Russian history of the 20th century, especially after 1985. In addition to historical and socio-political realities, Pelevin’s story includes hidden quotes from literary and musical works relevant to characterizing the changes that took place in Russian society in the 1980s and early 1990s. These quotes, allusions, references implement the principle of intertextuality, which blasts a purely linear reading of the text and proposes to take into account the author’s dialogue (or even polylog) with the “someone else’s text”, can be considered implemented only if the reader is able to catch the very presence of the “someone else’s text”.
Keywords: CommentViktor Pelevin“The Yellow Arrow”
In Russian postmodernism, Victor Pelevin is a cult figure. He is very popular with the generation that grew up in the 1990s. At the same time, Pelevin’s prose is considered largely hermetic for a modern young reader, because, firstly, the socio-historical, common, historical, cultural realities reflected in his works have disappeared from modern life; secondly, intensive intertextuality, which is one of the favourite forms of deconstruction that the writer refers to, contributes to this. As a result, nowadays there is the need for commenting on Pelevin’s texts (Markova, 2014).
The strategies of postmodernism, chosen by Pelevin, allow him to create “multi-layered” texts. Their polysemantism, on the one hand, raises their intellectual level, and on the other, makes it difficult for some readers to perceive them. The research is devoted to the problem of eliminating such difficulties, which occur in the process of understanding the text, using comments on the works of the modern writer.
During the process of commenting on the story of V. Pelevin “The Yellow Arrow”, a number of questions, that are necessary to be addressed, arose:
How to keep the texts, which represent the national literary canon of the 20th century, in the circle of actual reading?
How to connect a young reader and the text, whose language and realities disappear from the present?
What types of comments should complement V. Pelevin’s story “The Yellow Arrow”?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to consider the work “The Yellow Arrow” by V. Pelevin from the point of specificity of its commenting.
To achieve this purpose it is necessary to solve the following tasks:
to find the realities that require comments;
to define, which types of comments correlate with different types of realities;
to make exemplary comments on the different types of realities.
The general methodology of the research is determined by the stated tasks and involves the complex application of historical and literary analysis methods, as well as the consideration of the theory and practice of commenting.
The scientific commenting on the living Russian writers’ works, which are able to join the fund of Russian classical literature because of their artistic level and social significance, has its own specificity. Modern philologists state: the era of postmodernism comes to an end (Kolesnikov, 2019), so it is time for its study and commenting. A number of scientific problems are associated with this type of literary activity (Karpov et al., 2017; Kibalnik, 2017; Vajngurt, 2018), and one way or another, they should be resolved when referring to the works of “living classics”. As for an example, we consider V. Pelevin’s story “The Yellow Arrow” (1993), which now turns from the “cult” work of the 1990s to one of the most prominent works of Russian literature of the 20th century.
The plot of the story, written on the crossroads of the Soviet and post-Soviet eras, is organized by the motif of the path and represents an extended metaphor: the train “The Yellow Arrow” – Russian society, Russia in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which moves in an unknown direction. In Russian literature the situation, when there is a choice of the historical path is often associated with the means of transport. For example, one can recall N. Gogol’s metaphor-images (Chichikov’s chaise, “troika”), and tarantas from the novel by V. Sollogub (Sytina, 2018). In the second half of the 19th century, the motif of railway takes place in the imagery (Dmitrenko, 2012). In the post-revolutionary literary tendency, it begins to occupy one of the most important places in the process of symbolizing the rapid movement forward of the Soviet country. Pelevin’s “The Yellow Arrow” is not an exception in this imagery, but a natural continuation of the established tradition.
The main character of the story Andrei, as well as the others, is a passenger of “The Yellow Arrow”. The concept of “being a passenger” in Pelevin’s novel reflects an automatic, inertial, thoughtless perception of life: “... When a man stops hearing the sound of the wheels and just wants to keep on moving, he becomes a passenger” (Pelevin, 2018, p. 59). In this capacity, Andrei forcibly, not of his own free will, moves to the “ruined bridge” – an important symbol in Russian literature (Kladova, 2018).
Meanwhile, the main character goes through his individual path – the path of discipleship and dedication. Though at the beginning of the story he is an ordinary “passenger”, who lives by the inertia in accordance with narrow-minded stereotypes and don’t know other forms of existence rather than thoughtless movement in a train car, then by the end of the story he becomes a student of Khan and makes his choice consciously. First, the “teacher” sets the task for Andrei: “There is still the most difficult part. To ride in the train and not to be a passenger” (Pelevin, 2018, p. 59). Then he gives to the “student” even more complex task: “get off the train”. The motif of choosing one’s
When commenting on “The Yellow Arrow”, it is necessary, first, to take into account the rapid development of Russian history in the 20th century, which became even more rapid in the period after 1985. V. Pelevin was born in 1962, so for him the realities of the USSR, the collapse of which he observed in the late 1980s – early 1990s, were the facts of his biography. As the result, the range of signs, which are common for the time require comments for the Russian readers of next generations.
Creating images of his story, Pelevin uses the device of double and even triple coding. On the one hand, the signs of time and everyday life of the 1990s are generously scattered in the story (machinations of tumbler-gamblers, theft and further sale by Russian citizens of “non-ferrous metals” – aluminum spoons, cup holders, door locks). At the same time, these realities go along with the elements of the author’s worldview with noticeable philosophy of Zen Buddhism (Badmacyrenov & Ayushieva, 2017). According to it, the movement of “The Yellow Arrow” is considered as samsara, and the expression “to get off the train” means to leave the “circle of karma”. Two levels of content has passed through the prism of the post-modern “game code” (Ishimbaeva, 2001), in which tragic and philosophical things easily turn into farce. The principle of the “game” in Pelevin’s novel is based on a semantic field related to the motifs and images of the train and the railway (the newspaper “Route” (Put’), the heading “Rail and ties” (Rel’sy i shpaly), vodka “Railway Special” (Zheleznodorozhnaya osobaya), cognac “Lazo” (reference to Sergey Lazo) and so on). Such a “game” includes many common, social, political, economic, ideological, cultural realities of Soviet and post-Soviet country. In relation to this principle of “composite vision,” the comments on the title of the story should combine all the named aspects of the author’s vision.
For a significant part of modern readers, commenting on the realities of the collapse of the USSR and the start of the construction of the new, post-Soviet Russia is already necessary. Here are some examples:
In addition to historical and socio-political realities, Pelevin’s novel contains hidden quotes from literary and musical works that are relevant for characterizing the changes, which took place in Russian society in the 1980s and early 1990s. Of particular importance are the “quotes” from musical works. It is interesting that the Pelevin’s “game” with such quotes clearly marks the border between the song background of the Brezhnev era, which went to an end, and the songs of the new time – the era of “Perestroika”. The late Soviet musical “hits” appear in the novel as something forgotten or hardly remembered:
On the contrary, quotes from Russian and American rock songs characterize the new era. It is important to note that special attention in the “musical mode” of the story is given to the songs of B. Grebenshchikov, who according to Pelevin reflected the era of transition in his work as much as possible. For example:
The principle of intertextuality, which destroys a purely linear structure of the text and suggests taking into account the author’s dialogue (or even a polylogue) with “someone else’s text” (Suhanov, 2019), can be considered implemented only if the reader is able to catch the presence of “someone else’s text”. This task should be fulfilled through comments.
In the novel “The Yellow Arrow”, intertextuality is presented through literary quotes, which are mainly taken from the classic “range” of works of the Silver Age poets that became “fashionable” in the mid-1980s, and especially from the poetry of N. Gumilyov, who was banned under the Soviet regime. The introduction of these quotes is also subordinate to the author’s task to characterize the transitional era of Russian history:
“The Yellow Arrow” is a work of a postmodern writer. The author constantly “plays” with his reader. The text of the story is full of “false” moves, “tricks” and puzzles that require decoding, guessing and understanding. The interpretation of these “puzzles” should add some irony to the text, with the help of which, according to the author, it is possible to overcome the tragic perception of the sharp turns of Russian history at the end of the 20th century. Here are some examples:
…about the work of Japanese film-director Akira Kurosawa “Dodesukaden” ~ made in 1970 based on the novel of Ryūnosuke Akutagawa “The Sound of Invisible Wheels”… – Literary “game”, mystification of V. Pelevin. “Dodesukaden” (“The Sound of Streetcar Wheels”) – the film of Japanese film-director Akira Kurosawa (1970), based on the book of Japanese writer Satomu Shimizu “The Street without Sun”. There is another film of Kurosawa based on Ryūnosuke Akutagawa’s story “In a Grove” – “Rashōmon” (1950).
Being organized as a multicode structure, Pelevin’s novel is built on a delicate balance between aesthetic (sacred, esoteric (Pasechnik, 2015)) and mass (profane, exoteric) knowledge that a potential reader possesses or does not possess. The following example shows a passage, which is intended for an intellectual reader:
Another example shows that, along with refined references to philosophical ideas, Pelevin gives a metaphorical picture of openness and ambiguity of the further development of Russia through the image of mass culture:
The end of “The Yellow Arrow” is full of hidden literary connotations in reference with Russian literature of the early 20th century:
Andrei jumped onto the mound. ~ The train started ~ He turned and walked away. He did not really think about where he was going, but soon an asphalt road crossing a wide field appeared under his feet, and a bright line became visible in the sky near the horizon. ~ Soon, he began to hear clearly what he had never heard before: dry chirping in the grass, the breath of the wind and the quiet sound of his own steps. – It is an allusion to the text of A. Chekhov’s story “The Bishop” (1902). Its character was dying and felt new-found freedom from the shackles of society: “…he could not utter a word, he could understand nothing, and he imagined he was a simple ordinary man, that he was walking quickly, cheerfully through the fields, tapping with his stick, while above him was the open sky bathed in sunshine, and that he was free now as a bird and could go where he liked!” (Chekhov, 1977, p. 201). It can be also compared with the popular in the beginning of the 20th century novel “Sanine”, written by M. Artzibashef (1907), who was obviously influenced by Chekhov. In the end of the story, his character – a young man, who was free from social dogmas and prejudice – Vadimir Sanine left the provincial town and then jumped off the train: “Sanine did not waste time in reflection, but, leaving his valise behind him, jumped off the foot-board. With a noise like thunder the train rushed past him as he fell on to the soft, wet sand of the embankment. The red lamp on the last carriage was a long way off when he rose, laughing. <...> All around him was so free, so vast. Broad, level fields of grass lay on either side, stretching away to the misty horizon. Sanine drew a deep breath, as with bright eyes he surveyed the spacious landscape. Then he strode forward, facing the jocund, lustrous dawn; and, as the plain, awaking, assumed magic tints of blue and green beneath the wide dome of heaven; as the first eastern beams broke on his dazzled sight, it seemed to Sanine that he was moving onward; onward to meet the sun” (Artzibashef, 1990, р. 309).
Such an abundance of hidden quotes in the text creates an implicit accordance between Pelevin’s work and the previous tradition. This confirms the close connection of the best works of modern literature with Russian classics.
To summarize the results of this research, we come to the following conclusions:
As a result, there is a conclusion, that scientific commenting on the works of “modern classics” not only allows the reader to reveal the depth of the author’s intention thoroughly, but also shows the internal connection of postmodern, which sometimes is hidden behind shocking forms and techniques, with the previous stages of the development of Russian literature.
- Artzibashef, M. P. (1990). Sanin [Sanine]. Vsya Moskwa.
- Badmacyrenov, T. B., & Ayushieva, I. G. (2017). Buddizm i politika vo Vnutrenney Azii: istoriya i sovremennost’ [Buddhism and Politics in Inner Asia: History and Modernity]. Tomsk State University Bulletin, 421, 75-79. DOI:
- Chekhov, A. P. (1977). Polnoe sobranie sochineniy i pisem v 30 t. Sochineniya v 18 t. Т. 10 [Full collection of works and letters in 30 v. of Works in 18 v. V. 10]. Nauka.
- Dmitrenko, S. F. (2012). Zheleznaya doroga v russkoy literature: Antologiya [Railway in Russian literature: Anthology]. Zheleznodorozhnoe delo.
- Ishimbaeva, G. (2001). “Chapaev i Pustota”: postmodernistskie igry Viktora Pelevina [“Chapayev and Emptiness”: postmodern games of Victor Pelevin]. Voprosy literatury [Questions of literature], 6, 314-323.
- Karpov, A. A., Ovcharskaya, O. V., & Stepanov, A. D. (2017). Mezhdunarodnyy nauchnyy seminar “Intertekstual’nyy analiz: principy i granitsy” [International Scientific Seminar “Intertextual Analysis: Principles and Boundaries”]. Russkaya literatura, [Russian literature] 1, 254-262.
- Kibalnik, C. A. (2017). Zapisnye knizhki kak istochnik dlya kommentariya i interpretatsii literaturnogo proizvedeniya [Diaries as a source for commentary and interpretation of literary work]. Russkaya literature [Russian literature], 4, 40-51,
- Kladova, N. A. (2018). Most kak detal’-simvol v romane “Prestuplenie i nakazanie” [Bridge as a detail-symbol in the novel “Crime and Punishment”]. Voprosy literatury [Questions of literature], 6, 182-193.
- Kolesnikov, A. Yu. (2019). Postmodernizm mertv, a ya eshche net [Postmodernism is dead and I am not yet]. Voprosy literatury [Questions of literature], 2, 42-49.
- Markova, T. N. (2014). “Poezd idet k razrushennomu mostu” (Materialy k uroku po povesti V. Pelevina “Zheltaya strela”) [“The Train Goes to the Ruined Bridge” (Materials for the Lesson on V. Pelevin’s “Yellow Arrow”)], Filologicheskiy klass [The philological class], 3(37), 58-63.
- Pasechnik, V. V. (2015). Gnosticheskaya mifopoetika. Roman V. Pelevina “Lyubov’ k trem cukerbrinam” [Gnostic poetics. The novel of V. Pelevin “the Love for three cukerbrinam”], Voprosy literatury [Questions of literature], 6, 202-210.
- Pelevin, V. (2018). Zheltaya strela [The Yellow arrow]. Eksmo.
- Solov'ev, V. (1892). Enciklopedicheskiy slovar’ Brokgauz i Efron [Brockhaus and Efron encyclopedia]. Sankt-Peterburg.
- Suhanov, V. A. (2019). Tekst i kul’tura: funktsii “vtorichnyh” tekstov v russkoy proze 1970- nachala 2000-h gg. [Text and culture: functions of “secondary” texts in Russian prose 1970- early 2000’s.]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Kul'turologiya i iskusstvovedenie. Tomsk State University Journal of Cultural Studies and Art History, 36, 118-129.
- Sytina, Yu. N. (2018). “Rus’, kuda zh neseshsya ty?”: ot “pticy-trojki” do zheleznoj dorogi (Gogol’, Dostoevskiy i drugie) [“Russia, where are you going?”: From “troika” to railway (Gogol, Dostoyevsky and others)]. Problemy istoricheskoy poetiki [The problem of historical poetics], 16, 4, 115-139.
- Vajngurt, Yu. (2018). Svoj sredi drugih: koncepciya chitatelya u Pelevina [Among the others: the concept of the reader in Pelevin’s prose]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie [New literary review], 1, 509-523.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
27 May 2021
Print ISBN (optional)
Culture, communication, history, mediasphere, education, law
Cite this article as:
Gracheva, A., & Igosheva, T. (2021). Specificity Of Commenting On Modern Classics: V. Pelevin “The Yellow Arrow”. In E. V. Toropova, E. F. Zhukova, S. A. Malenko, T. L. Kaminskaya, N. V. Salonikov, V. I. Makarov, A. V. Batulina, M. V. Zvyaglova, O. A. Fikhtner, & A. M. Grinev (Eds.), Man, Society, Communication, vol 108. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 415-422). European Publisher. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.05.02.50