Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

BOB PORTER: Midday microphones, Minnesota Public Radio's cultural reporter Beth Friend. Hi, Beth. How are you today?

BETH FRIEND: Fine, Bob. Thank you. And good afternoon. I'd like to welcome to MPR and to the Twin Cities, Yevgeny Yevtushenko, the Soviet Union's most famous and controversial poet. His visit here to the Twin Cities is sponsored by the Loft and comes in conjunction with his tour in the United States, promoting his latest book of poetry Almost at the End.

Accompanying him and here in the studio with us is his translator and longtime friend, Professor Albert Todd of Queens College of the City University of New York. Professor Todd is accompanying him on this tour and reads poetry in English after Yevtushenko recites it in Russian.

Before we begin with my question, I just wanted to tell our listeners a little bit about you. You have been described by The New York Times as the most newsworthy living Russian poet. Your position in Soviet culture and politics has been described as that of a rebel and envoy, engaging in enraging readers and critics both at home and abroad for more than 30 years.

Yevtushenko has developed a reputation as a courageous, anti-establishment figure during the Nikita Khrushchev years and was viewed as the liberating voice of the first post-Stalinist generation. He is well known for protesting anti-Semitism in his poem "Babi Yar" and Stalin's reign of terror in the poem "The Heirs of Stalin."

More recently, critics have accused him of adapting to the prevailing political mood and moving from defiance to a kind of conformity during the Brezhnev years. But more recently, he is known for having campaigned for glasnost for what is now characterized as Gorbachev's policy for openness in Soviet cultural and political life.

And at a Congress of Russian writers in 1985, he called for an end to censorship in Soviet literature. So my first question for you is, what did you tell your fellow Soviet writers? What did you call for at that Congress?

YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO: It was nothing new what I said to them, nothing new for me. Probably it was something new for them, but not for me. Because when Stalin died in 1953, I was 20 years old poet.

And during Stalin's life, we didn't know the scale of tragedy. We didn't know the scale of arrests of innocent people in Soviet Union. It was a very tragic discovery for us when some people began to come back from camps, from the prisons. And I think we began the fight for glasnost since that time.

Once I wrote that in Soviet, in Russia, poet is more than poet is. So it means that our poets, they were very closely connected with history of our-- with reality of life of our society. They never lived apart of people. And so our poets always were kinds of rebels.

And that was my generation who began struggle for glasnost, which means openness since 1953. And Gorbachev that time was one of students. He was one of our audiences because we began to-- which sometimes probably he was squeezing into our overcrowded halls and we recited our poetry with no tickets into balcony. I don't know exactly, but it could be this way.

And I think we formed with our poetry, even new some social changes. So what I did in the last congress, it just I repeated my points of view, and I called my colleague writers to establish this openness, not as something temporary but as something forever.

BETH FRIEND: Tell me, how would you describe what glasnost is?

YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO: It's very difficult to describe something which is unvisual. But glasnost, I mean, glasnost more or less, glasnost, the translation, English translation openness is not completely exact because glasnost, it's a combination of two words.

First of all, it's glas. Glas it means voice. When you say glasnost in Russia, it means it is glas of conscience, a voice of conscience. I think this is a right translation.

And so everybody has conscience, of course, but some people covertly is trying to squeeze their conscience into the depths of their mouths, the depths of their throats. They don't want to show their own conscience. And if they don't show their conscience, they'll lose it.

But even if some bastards they have torments of conscience, it gives even little hope what they have conscience itself. And I think what now is new in Soviet Union, what we have really voice of conscience of our people and our newspapers and our literature and our movies and our plays. It doesn't mean we didn't have it before, but we had very strong censorship.

We were fighting for a long time against censorship, and now we won, and this struggle, probably not absolutely because we have very strong resistance against our glasnost, against voice of conscience. One Russian playwright, Shatrov, wrote one very famous play, Dictatorship of Conscience. It's what we want to realize in Soviet Union. Dictatorship of Conscience, which means dictatorship of people.

BETH FRIEND: We have a number of callers on the line. Let's take our first call. Good afternoon. You're on the air.

AUDIENCE: Yes, I reflect on Solzhenitsyn's attack on the immorality that exists both here in the West and in the East as well documented by his books. And we in the West think our bankruptcy may be largely attributed to our materialism. And in the East, at least in the East Bloc countries and the Soviet, I think as well, from what I've understood, they're talking with engineering professors that have worked in Poland and the Soviet that the intelligentsia there have been more or less morally bankrupt as a result of their materialism, which the Soviets have showered them with a lot of benefits and a material nature.

I would be interested in the reflections about this capitulation on both sides, in contrast, whether or not the lack of emphasis on morality in the Soviet countries has-- what contributing factor has that had on their run? But it appears to be a capitulation, a total capitulation to the power.

ALBERT TODD: Capitulation [INAUDIBLE].

YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO: Yeah, I got your question. Thank you. I think it was very profound question. Inside your question, I found many questions and many problems. Your question could be subject of very long conversation over all night.

OK, briefly. OK. I was in 87 countries, so I know so-called free worlds, I mean, world of capitalism, world of socialism and so-called third world, which combines features of both societies more or less like this.

So I could tell you what, first of all, I don't believe in this conception of free world. In my opinion, it's when we-- at some, that's artificial division because world is whole. It's same. I mean, this just free ways is the same family of a man.

But could you imagine, for instance, three brothers, and each one from them they choose their own way. Each one is convinced that this way of life is best way of life. And, of course, probably some of them are wrong. Or there is one possibility all of them are wrong, and probably right way to find truth, to find real high morality society is absolutely false way about which we couldn't guess now.

And probably new world future children, but probably our children but children of our children, they will see completely different world, which not to look as today's Soviet socialism, as today's American capitalism, unlike today's so-called third world. But I think we have-- all of us, all societies are very far from paradise.

And our society has our own defects. Your society, your own defects. Third world has its own defects. But we must not to be drawn into mutual accusations now because there is a dead end.

We must try now common problems, common enemies in our society, in our all three different worlds. Nothing could connect people more stronger than a feeling of common enemies.

OK, let's remember about the fight against Hitler's fascists. We were wonderful allies, Americans and Russians and French people and many other peoples in the world despite of our contradictions. Unfortunately, our victory in May of 1945 divided us, and our American-Russian honeymoon was unfortunately very short.

So what we must do to invent new Hitler which will unite us? Of course, it's stupid because price is too high. But let's think as brothers of same family of a man. We have already many common enemies.

For instance, let's speak about corruption. If you open American newspapers, for instance today, I opened New York Times. I have read about so many cases of corruption, bribery, et cetera. I open Soviet newspapers, I read absolutely the same story-- bribery, corruption, et cetera.

So we live in so-called different system, but we have same sins, same corruption, because corruption, socialist corruption or capitalist corruption, this is corruption. That's betrayal of Christianity in highest sense.

And, for instance, we have terrible common enemies like hunger in the world, for instance. OK. There is no hunger in Russia. There is no hunger in America except some very poor people, very poor people. But there is terrible hunger and Third World War.

And OK, if, for instance, we Americans and Russians, we will find agreements about nuclear weapons. And we will make peace between our two states. It's not enough. Because what could happen if we will just make Russian-American peace, if the Third World War, one very poor, starving nation will get nuclear bomb and it will destroy all world? Not because of the evil, but because of desperation.

Hunger is our common enemy, too. And we must do-- pollution, for instance, cruel extermination of mother nature is what we do in Soviet Union. Unfortunately, sometimes you are doing in the United States. So we have many common enemies and diseases, of course, and many things.

So in my opinion, we must to lift the openness, not on national levels. You Americans openly speak about your defects. We Russians we speak about openly about our defects. We must to lift this openness, this [INAUDIBLE] on international level.

And I think if instead of mutual accusation, our leaders, they will sit down at the table and they will not accuse each other, but instead they just to share their problems, common problems, they will find mutual understanding.

BETH FRIEND: OK, we have another caller on the line. Go ahead, please.

AUDIENCE: Yes. My question is historical in nature. I'm wondering if you could compare the cultural oppression that artists have under the present form of government as compared to that of the Tsarist regimes. It seemed like they had an elite class of artists and aristocracy under the Tsars, and now they have an elite class that's the Communist Party members. And I was wondering if, as a person who lived in the Soviet Union for so long, if you could address that question.

YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO: Yeah. First of all, OK, about Communist Party, because probably some listeners, they don't know how many members of party-- I am not a member of party of Communist Party.

So if I could be American, I could be never a member of any parties because according to my observance now they have many difficult to find good candidates now. And I don't like party discipline. Of course, I am poet. I was undisciplined child since my childhood.

But in Soviet Union, we have 270 millions of population, among them, just 18 millions of members of Communist Party. So they are very different. They are some intellectuals, some workers, some employers. I mean, like a classes of people, they are there. But at the same time, as a people, as a concrete people, they are absolutely different.

One member of Communist Party could be very honest man, very courageous man. One liar could be one liar, one briber, could be very gifted man, could be mediocre man. So when you say communists, don't generalize, never, because it's 18 millions of people.

And so do all of them have some privileges, like aristocracy in prerevolutionary Russia? OK, being honest, yes, some so-called how to say states, employers, apparatchiks according our political slang, OK, yes, of course, some of them they have some privileges. But I could tell you what our literature begun attack this privileges. Even many years before Gorbachev, for instance, my poetry, in my novel, Wild Berries, I attacked it absolutely with full coverage. And as are my colleagues, we attacked it.

And I think we are diminishing these privileged. And we would like to abolish it, abolish it. But, of course, people who has any kind of privilege, they don't want give up very easily because any kind, if you see any kind of political struggle, political fight in the United States or in Soviet Union or in other country, behind this political struggle, with that all beautiful political declarations, you will find biological fight for survival.

That's why in one of my article, I called such a people in Soviet Union, people who is trying to look as a ideological commissar, ideological prophet, kind of your American televangelists. I am saying about them what they have no ideology. They have just armchair theology.

But I could tell you, you could, unfortunately, yes, we inside socialism, unfortunately, we have some microbes of prerevolutionary Russia, unfortunately. But historically, it probably was inevitable because Russia didn't pass a period of bourgeoisie Democratic republic. Russia almost from slavery, from Tsarist regime, from a so-called Kingdom Tsardom, if you wish, jumped over the Bourgeois Democratic period into socialism.

And, of course, for instance, if you live on one new-- OK, if you live in one wooden, very old cabin, and if you will immediately to change your wooden cabin, wooden hut for new building, into your new building, in your trunk, you carry all bed bugs from your old house. That's inevitable. That's what's happened in our country.

But there is one difference, and difference is very important. Despite of these defects of our society, prerevolutionary Russia came to revolution of October with 70% of illiterate people. And, of course, poetry for this literature could be read only by certain circles, certain level, certain classes of people. But now the situation is changed.

And even in some workers houses, for instance, I am Siberian. I was in Siberia many times. For instance, I-- but with my own eyes, I was a eye witness of discussion of Siberian workers about the John Updike prose. Or you could very often to find Hemingway portraits in houses of Russian workers, even sometimes in villages.

And Pasternak, for instance, when he was alive, he was read just by very certain narrow circle of very high intellectuals. And he, when he was alive, didn't publish even one book, more than 5,000 books. And it was very easy to buy even after the Second World War, first years, very easy to buy Pasternak's book just openly in the shop. But now when we publish Pastrnak, this circulation of 200,000, it could be sold out during one day.

Pasternak, for instance, was accused in early 20s and early 30s what he is too complicated for so-called ordinary Russians. But now he became more and more transparent, more and more accessible, which means we developed culture of so-called ordinary Russian people. I think the defects is the main victory of our society.

BETH FRIEND: Go ahead. You're on the air.

AUDIENCE: Yes, I am concerned by-- well, I'm a father of an 11-year-old, and I am 34 myself. And I'm noticing a great gap between him and I as far as our awareness of what's going on in the world and what's happening now more than just the age difference.

I'm wondering whether there's isn't a growing apathy here in America as well as what's happening over in Russia. We have in the last three or four years, a number of tests have come out given the--

YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO: Number of-- sorry.

BETH FRIEND: Tests, he said.

YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO: Yes, OK.

AUDIENCE: College kids and high school kids were given tests as well as man on the street about current events. Things that are happening in the last five years, major events, and they didn't know where they happened. They didn't know the names involved. And this was like 60%, 70% of the people involved in the test.

And it's like there's an apathy going on here as far as Americans just don't care what's going on beyond our borders. We'll let the news take care of it. We'll let everybody else take care of it. And I'm wondering if that is a phenomenon that's happening among young people in the Soviet Union, or is this something that's strictly an American phenomenon or--

YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO: Yeah, wonderful question. I'm a father of three sons now, and my son is 19 years old and other they're 9 and 7 years old. And I understand your concerns.

It's very difficult to generalize about the young people because they're very different. And sometimes, of course, many things depends of us, of fathers. Many thing depends of mothers, how we will teach them, what kind of angle of understanding what we could give to them. But afterwards there is school as many things depends on school, but not everything is the school, because there is street. And street sometimes could be very good or sometimes very cruel, dangerous teacher, and I mean, so many slippery, evil temptations around our children.

And, for instance, I think I was brought up when TV was just born. But, for instance, it seems to me we have same problem with our children because they stick too much to the TV screen. And some of them involuntary became victims of total stupid decision, which TV sometimes represents.

And TV, how to say TV, sometimes squeezing into their fragile child, into fragile young brains, some cliches which could stick forever, sometimes. And above all, sometimes they make opinion about what's going abroad or something like that, just by some rumor, some pieces of curt conversations.

It's difficult because I'm trying to find answer to your question, but I could tell you TV now begun tests with some teenagers. And sometimes my discovery was very sad because as an American, fortunately, for the teenagers like more, contemporary teenagers, like more pop, rock music but not literature, not poetry.

They know perfectly names of all stage or movies or stage stars or screen stars, but they don't know their own history on our Russian own history. For instance, one American jazz man, Paul Winter, who is a friend of mine, he met one group of Russian teenagers. He was absolutely overwhelmed by their deep knowledge of American jazz.

But afterwards, when he asked them what they think about Dostoyevsky, nobody from them, a Russian teenager hasn't read Dostoevsky. But same time, for instance, you could find absolutely very same how to say some criminal, very dangerous knowledge of American literature amongst American teenagers. So that's our common danger.

And if they're not interested in history, their own national history, what tell they're interested in history of France or Italy or in Russia, et cetera. If they're not interested-- if they don't want to read, for instance, Faulkner, Robert Penn Warren or other American writers, why they must read Alberto Moravia, who is Italian, et cetera? I mean, interest for world, for all the world, the rest of world, begins from the interest to own national culture.

BETH FRIEND: What's the remedy to this problem? How can we encourage young people to become knowledgeable about the culture that they're a part of, the history?

YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO: I think some progressive forces must take over of TV to teach from TV screen, to teach indifference. We need professors of indifference. Professor-- oh, I'm sorry. I made a mistake.

We need professor. We already had thousands of professors of indifference, professor non-indifference. That's what we need.

BETH FRIEND: Professors of involvement.

YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO: Professor of non-indifference.

BETH FRIEND: Yes.

YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO: Non-indifference to your own culture, if you know only if you love your own country, you could love other country. But love doesn't exist without knowledge. Love without knowledge, that's blind love. That's how to say it's ersatz, forgery, ersatz of love.

That's why I like only patriotism with open eyes. I hate patriotism with closed eyes, blind patriotism. That's pathetic. It's dangerously pathetic.

And only if you are a patriot with open eyes of your own country, you could love other country. Only if you love your own mother, you could love someone mother.

BETH FRIEND: Go on to our next caller now. Good afternoon. You're on the air.

AUDIENCE: Yes, thank you. I'm calling from Saint Cloud, Minnesota. And I have followed your career for a long time. And I like what you're saying today.

In particular, I have a question about your statement that the United States and the Soviet Union should fight the common enemies. And, of course, we might have to wait for people like Reagan and Gorbachev to do this.

But I'd like to ask you, what can ordinary people do to move the relationship from confrontation to fighting the common enemies? I think that's a very promising idea.

YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO: First of all, OK, I don't like the expression ordinary people. Let's use this expression only as a so-called ordinary people, because so-called ordinary people sometimes it's so extraordinary people.

What can we do? OK, first of all, not to give up when mass media here in the Soviet Union is trying to brainwash us, not to give up. Just to be independent, to have our own-- we must to have our own independent point of view based not on the cliché but on our real observation, on our real knowledge, on our goodwill.

And I think it's a good what American writers are going to Soviet Union, Russian writers going to Soviet Union. But now, for instance, there is a big event in Moscow in the end of May because it will be the greatest congress of physicians for the prevention of nuclear war. According to my knowledge, it will be about 5,000 people from 60 countries, among them 1,200 American doctors. It's a great event.

So you see, but it depends only of our professions, all of us. Doesn't matter who we are. Carpenters, taxi drivers, actors, nurses, housewives, we must be doctors who taking care of our own child, of our own common child, our globe.

And so that's why I think we must to extend our exchange, not only just on tourist level. I think that why American foresters could not come to Russian foresters, they have so many common problems. Or Russian foresters will come to America.

Let's exchange nurses for nurses, carpenters for carpenters, taxi driver to taxi driver. That could be great if American taxi drivers will come to Moscow. It could be great event. But we must to begin from children.

And I think I saw in Boston, being in Boston, I saw 10 Siberian high school boys and girls, their first attempt of such kind exchange. And their American friends from American high schools, they were in Siberia. And they became friends.

And so, in my opinion, if, for instance, we Russians will send something like 1,000 our children to America and Americans will send 1,000 children to Russia, the children could be voluntary hostages of the peace, and their papas, their fathers, they will absolutely is different look to look to this bloody battle, nuclear battle if they know what some of their children are over Russia in another country.

And above all, these children could be wonderful ambassadors. And they will learn language each other. They probably will be friends since childhood. Best marriages, for instance, they always are if girl, a boy knows each other since childhood.

So I think we have we could do a lot of things. We must not give up and to say, yes, we are ordinary people. We are helpless. Destiny of the world, unfortunately, does depend of us. I think the destiny of the world inside us.

BETH FRIEND: Let's go on to our next caller. Good afternoon. You're on the air.

AUDIENCE: Hello. Welcome to Minnesota.

YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO: Thank you.

AUDIENCE: And I agree so much with everything you've been saying. This is not the question I was going to ask, but I just want to make a side comment to the gentleman who spoke before about our children here not being aware of what's going on outside of the world.

I visited outside of the United States-- this part of the world. I visited the Soviet Union in 1985, and I was so impressed with how knowledgeable the young people I met there were about other places. And just as one example, I mentioned that I was from Minnesota to someone, and they said, oh, where the Mississippi begins and where Walter Mondale lives.

And I was really surprised because I've raised nine children here and I'm quite sure if they met someone from the Soviet Union who mentioned the name of the republic, they would not have the slightest idea where it was or any rivers or anything like that. And I was just impressed overall with how informed the Soviet people were and well-read, including American literature.

And I just wondered if my impression was correct or not. It seemed to me that there were so many bookstores. And every home I went into seemed to have a lot of books. People were reading on subways and even walking down the street. And I just wondered if you have any figures or facts or anything that would put that in perspective just how important are books and writers and poets in the Soviet Union compared to other countries where you may have traveled, do you know?

YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO: Mm-hmm. I could tell you, OK. Are you, as I understood you, are you mother of nine children? I didn't understand you.

AUDIENCE: Just a mother of five. But they've all lived with us. We've raised them all here.

YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO: Wonderful. Wonderful. So for instance, in Soviet Union, all children were brought up by the books of Mark Twain. Mark Twain was published only after October Revolution. Something like about 40 million copies, the second writer who is Dickens after Mark Twain.

But also for other such names like you couldn't imagine one Russian man who had-- I mean, not all of people, but more Russian intellectuals, everybody there, they read, of course, Edgar Allen Poe and Thoreau and Melville and Stephen Crane and Hemingway and Faulkner and Dreiser and both Sinkler and Dos Pasos and many and John Steinbeck, Kurt Vonnegut, John Updike, John [INAUDIBLE].

I don't want to read this list. It could be too long. And our theaters not only in Moscow, in many provincial theaters, we have plays and Tennessee Williams, Eugene O'Neill, Arthur Miller, Edward Albee. So I think Russians, they love very much generally American literature. They know American literature. I'm sorry saying it, but much better, probably 10 times better than ordinary Americans knows Russian literature.

That's why partly of this. That's why I think what ordinary Russians who read American literature, they don't afraid Americans. That's really true. In Russia, you could not find fear of Americans.

Because if you understand, most Americans, they understand Russians through newspapers. And newspapers, unfortunately-- I'm not accusing only your American newspapers. I could say about Russian newspapers, too. But newspapers, they more or less give primitive image of people.

And if Americans, they will read more and more Russian classical and contemporary literature, I absolutely sure they will change opinion about our people because only in great art you could find magic key for soul of any people. So I couldn't tell you that Russians are mainly interested in American literature. That's couldn't be true.

For instance, I don't think-- what I think what now American literature is a great moment in American literature. I don't think so. For instance, most popular novel on Novelist in Russia last year is Gabriel Garcia Márquez, who wrote One Hundred Years of Solitude, but he is probably the greatest writer.

I think, in America now you have wonderful team, not less than probably 35, 40 first-class prose writers. But it seems to me, I'm afraid, what you have not such a geniuses like us, Faulkner or Hemingway for a moment.

But in same time, I know how great and talented is American people. And if we will speak about genius, I don't think, but we have geniuses too. But we have also team of first-class writers. Or probably we just don't appreciate some of them enough because it's unfortunately, as I said once, Jules Renard, for to understand as a writer, a gift is really gifted. We must to imagine him dead.

BETH FRIEND: We have a lot of calls, so let's go on to our next one. Hello, you're on the air.

AUDIENCE: Well, I have two concerns. One is cultural and the other is political. I like languages, and I love music.

If I hear "Boris" sung in Russian, the melody and the words seem to fit together. And if it's translated into any other language, it doesn't seem to fit. And I've always been intrigued how much English and historically French is spoken in Russia. My political concern is, do the Siberian-- Russia is a big country. Do the Siberian have a different outlook than somebody from the Ukraine?

YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO: Yeah. OK. So first question. According to Harper's Magazine, so you see, sometimes I believe to your American press. According to Harper's Magazine, you have now only 25,000 students who learn Russian in America. And in Soviet Union, we have 25,000 teachers who teach English in Soviet Union.

So English now-- so I think it's a big mistake of educational system in the United States. OK, even if some people, reactionary people here is thinking what Soviet Union is a potential enemy, God damn. But you must be armed to teeth with the language of your enemy, even in this case. But in the same time, I am absolutely convinced what we have very wide field for our future collaboration. And I just afraid what your country not will be prepared in the question of language for it.

Above all, there is another problem. You have very few good professional translators of Russian literature. It's a hellish question to find good translator from Russian literature. And we have wonderful team of translators of English and American literature in English.

And I think American language is leading in the world now. And we and our all people in all institutes, they don't understand it. That's why they studied. But above all, English is beautiful, but the Russian language is beautiful too.

In any way, I think what? Sometimes-- I'm sorry. I'm honest. I love America so that my love to America gives me a right to accuse you sometimes, to criticize as a afraid to friends.

So I think what, you Americans, you are very lazy with foreign languages. And this is your disadvantage. You lose knowledge of many great events of culture in Europe, including Russia.

So about the political aspect of your question, I think that we must know each other. That's, we don't know each other enough. Then I think this is connected with the first part of the question.

One of way to know each other is to study English in Russia and Russian in America. Above all, I could tell you one thing. I think if we will have American president who will speak Russian and Russian President who will speak English with some juicy American expressions, especially they will understand each other much better because presence of interpreter sometimes doesn't give them possibility to feel each other.

BETH FRIEND: Let's go on to our next questioner. Hello, you're on the air.

AUDIENCE: Thank you. First of all, I would like to acknowledge your role, Yevgeny. And thank you for restoring Boris Pasternak's name in the Soviet Union. Excuse me.

And now the question. There is something new and exciting going on in the Soviet Union, I mean, the openness campaign. And it's widely publicized both inside and outside of the Soviet Union.

There is a great amount of Russian literature abroad. Don't you think it's the time to open the Soviet Union borders for Solzhenitsyn and Aksyonov, Garrick, and many other Russian authors?

YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO: Unfortunately. I'm not border guard. And generally, I hate borders. It's probably I'll read some peace of my poem at the end of our conversation.

How to say you. I think that our society must be more open and open. But I think many things depends now of those writers, depends of their good will. But when unfortunately we developed glasnost in Soviet Union, and I swear that it's not a political trick. I'm not giving guarantee what it will succeed, everything, no.

But I know because I am inside this fight for glasnost. I know how hard to fight for it. And this is sincere move of our society. Probably it's a maturity of our society, because tolerance means maturity.

But at the same time, we are-- I think Solzhenitsyn's behavior is much wiser than, for instance, Aksyonov. Because Solzhenitsyn is waiting. He's not commending. Solzhenitsyn I don't share many of his points of view, but he never was involved in petty political intrigues in so-called current politics.

But, for instance, Aksyonov, together with other émigré writers who left Russia, they attacked glasnost from abroad. What they're doing, our glasnost inside sovereign is attacked by some Stalinists and these people attacking from abroad.

I read one of new articles of Aksyonov. And I was terribly surprised how he transformed. Being in Soviet Union, progressive writer, fighting for openness, when he left Soviet Union, became very right wing writer. And many Americans writers, most of them, all of them, they never could sign such a kind of his words. For instance, when he called October Revolution as a riot of slaves against masters, it's very primitive. It's stupidity because October Revolution was historical lead of our country.

And when he is glorifying, for instance, now, which is absolutely shameful for writer, so-called benevolent inequality, all fight of humanity since Christianity was for fraternity, égalité, equality, for brotherhood, for equality. And he is one writer who is glorifying, like one length Lord of 17th century, he is glorifying benevolent inequality. In my opinion, it's terrible. So it depends of them of their good will.

BETH FRIEND: Speaking of barricades, as you were, and speaking of translations, as we were, why don't we hear from you from a piece of poetry from your newest book, Almost at the End.

YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO: Yes. Well, not because I'm promoting this book, but I just would like if your listeners really will buy this book to read it, because in my opinion, it's the best translation of my poetry in this book, Almost at the End, published by Henry Holt Company. I just want to read some pieces about borders.

In every border post, there is something insecure. Each one of them is longing for leaves and for flowers. They say the greatest punishment for a tree is to become a border post.

The birds that sit to rest on border posts can't figure out what kind of tree they've landed on. I suppose that at first it was people who invented borders, and then borders started to invent people.

It was borders who invented police armies and border guards. It was borders who invented customs man, passports, and other shit. Sorry for this word.

Thank God, we have invisible threads and threadlets born of the threads of blood from the nails in the palms of Christ that was a hill of skulls. Now it is grown into an Everest. The Earth was transformed and became a giant burial place. While borders still stand, we are all in prehistory. A real history will start when all borders are gone.

BETH FRIEND: From what poem did you read from?

YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO: It's a chapter of my epic poem.

BETH FRIEND: Which is called?

YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO: It's called [NON-ENGLISH]. It's a very strange title, which means kind of taboo in the language of Santo Domingo Parisians.

BETH FRIEND: We have just a few minutes left, so let's see if we can take another call or two. Good afternoon. You're on the air.

AUDIENCE: Hello. My question was two parts. The first is, it seems from observation that I've had that our political systems, both Soviet and American, have an institutionalized distrust for each other. That is often irrational, given when we have cultural exchanges, there's a great connection that we feel with each other, both in all the arts that I have seen the Russian ballet coming here or art expositions going to the Soviet Union.

In your opinion, is there any great deal of hope for our political systems ever coming to a peaceful connection with each other? And my second question is, it seems historically or at least historians say that the Russian and Soviet differences often are caused-- I mean, the American and Russian differences are caused by a basic fundamental difference in the way we think. Do you believe that? Do you place any faith in that opinion?

YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO: I absolutely believe that we could to live not only in parallel way, not during so-called détente, because détente is a temporary thing. But we could establish trust and to develop in parallel way different sources for the best future of humanity. And probably we will find it together when our society will filtrate all our dirt. Your society will filtrate out your own dirt. And that will be our common source society, which will be our common child, which will have some features of private initiative world and some feature of socialist world.

Now, since 1 of May, we openly develop private initiative, and our business, according to our new law, is completely open for new ventures with private capital, including America. So let's try.

BETH FRIEND: Thank you. Thank you, Yevgeny Yevtushenko, for joining us today in the studio and to Professor Albert C. Todd, who was here at his side for a quick question or two of translation.

BOB PORTER: And very interesting session today with Yevgeny Yevtushenko. About a minute before 1 o'clock now as we wrap up Midday for today. Twin Cities listeners, a reminder that on KSTN 1330 AM this afternoon, two way radio, the guest, Stephen Young, Dean of the Hamline University Law School and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, he will be answering your questions about the Iran-Contra affair, whose hearings we have been listening to for many of the past several days on KSTN and in the Twin Cities.

Minnesota weather forecast calling for just a chance of some showers, particularly in the North today, with the possibility of rain across the state again tonight and tomorrow, just a slight chance for tomorrow. Highs today from the 70s to the mid 80s, lows tonight in the 50s and 60s, and highs tomorrow from the 70s to around 90 Northeast to West.

That's Midday for today. More good listening straight ahead on this station. Thank you for listening. This is Bob Potter speaking.

Twin Cities forecast. Mostly sunny, breezy, warmer this afternoon, high around 82 with southerly winds, 15 to 25, tonight, partly cloudy, 20% chance of rain and a low in the upper 50s. Right now it's 73 and mostly sunny in Minneapolis, Saint Paul. This is KSTN Minneapolis, Saint Paul, 1330. It's 1 o'clock.