In Defense of Mikhail Shishkin: My 2 Cents --Inter-textuality and Cannibalization of the prose

In Defense of Mikhail Shishkin: My 2 Cents --Inter-textuality and Cannibalization of the prose

I was shocked by the reporting by the Moscow Times writer-reporter Viktor Sonkin that was published in April of 2006 in the section called “Context” in the column called “Salon” that was titled , “Mikhail Shishkin, one of Russia's most prominent writers, has been accused of plagiarism. But is it legitimate for a postmodernist author to use other people's texts as "building blocks" in his work?
I could not really understand the meaning of the accusations. I personally believe that the writer of the column is not aware of the trend that is called Brazilian Antropophagia. It is an idea of a literary genre that evolved in Brazil at the turn of the last century that alludes to the fact that we are what we eat (of course not literally speaking). To explicate the point further, I would argue that Mikhail Shishkin had every right to in-corporate materials from Panova’s memoirs. In other words the author’s right to exercise his or her own free will by internalizing and creating a sustainable network of textual ideas cannot be denied.


I had a chance to briefly meet with Mikhail Shishkin during his visit to our university. As an ethnic east-Indian who loves Eastern European cultures, I did admire his writing in Russian. I admit it is dense, yet very perceptive. The ability to reflect upon events and mould them in a cohesive text can be difficult and Mikhail Shishkin has done so brilliantly. The article further informs that for some Mr. Shishkin’s explanatory letter seemed “arrogant”. I do disagree with this assessment. I believe that as author Mr. Shishkin had every reason to respond in the way he chose to. After all these were his words in response to the accusations and one would and should respect these words. I argue, what is wrong, if there is literary cannibalization against the norms of codified genres and convention. The Soviet codification, is it alive even today?? What are the social norms in the literature that cannot be defied?? If not then I would ask Why not???


Nobody is proposing here literary anarchism, but the fact that inter-textuality is an inalienable texture of writing. It is like blaming the author for the original sin that he did not committed. Inter-textuality on the other hand can be elucidated in the works of many authors. If asked for examples, I would reproduce many from my own memories. Mikhail Shishkin in my mind was never guilty of the plagiarism. He is a fiction writer with substantial freedom of expression. We must honor that right. Mr. Shishkin, I personally admire your writing. Keep on writing as usual… Provoke the reader and the critics. I rest my case…