1. Various scholars have written, if above all implicitly, of ideals of subjectivity with respect to the start of the post-Stalin period. I mention their work below only insofar as the ideals of subjectivity with which they are concerned are related to my own. By subjectivity, I mean a subject or individual created historically in dialogue with dominant and lessdominant political, social, and cultural institutions and phenomena. For a discussion of the use of the term subject as opposed to self, see Mansfield, Nick, Subjectivity: Theories of the Self from Freud to Haraway (St. Leonards, 2000)Google Scholar, in which he writes, “The word 'self does not capture the sense of social and cultural entanglement that is implicit in the word ‘subject': the way our immediate daily life is always already caught up in complex political, social and philosophical—that is, shared—concerns” (23). In addition to Mansfield, my starting points for this definition are Foucault, Michel, “The Subject and Power,“ Critical Inquiry 8, no. 4 (Summer 1982): 777–95Google Scholar; Hellbeck, Jochen, Revolution on My Mind: Writing a Diary under Stalin (Cambridge, Mass., 2006), 9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Chatterjee, Choi and Petrone, Karen, “Models of Selfhood and Subjectivity: The Soviet Case in Historical Perspective,“ Slavic Review 67no. 4 (Winter 2008): 967–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Unlike some of the above scholars, I have chosen, following Mansfield, not to use the terms subject and self interchangeably. When I use the latter (or a derivation thereof), it is to create at least some distinction (at times impossible not to elide) between my conceptual apparatus and the views of the subjects of this article.

2. On the imperial period, see Ginzburg, Lydia, On Psychological Prose, trans. Rosengrant, Judson (Princeton, 1991);CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Paperno, Irina, Chernyshevsky and the Age of Realism: A Study in the Semiotics of Behavior (Stanford, 1988), 37–38.Google Scholar On the imperial and Soviet eras, see Hellbeck, Jochen, introduction and “Russian Autobiographical Practice,” in Hellbeck, Jochen and Heller, Klaus, eds., Autobiographical Practices in Russia / Autobiographische Praktiken in Russland (Göttingen, 2004), esp. 13–14,278-82,284-85,288-90,296-97Google Scholar; and Mikhailov, N. V. and Khell'bek, I., eds., Chelovek i lichnosf v istorii Rossii, konets XIXXX vek: Materialy mezhdunawdnogo kollokviuma, Sankt-Peterburg, 7-10 iunia 2010 goda (St. Petersburg, 2013).Google Scholar On the Soviet period, see Hellbeck, Revolution on My Mind, 7-8, 276-77, 297; Halfin, Igal, From Darkness to Light: Class, Consciousness, and Salvation in Revolutionary Russia (Pittsburgh, 2000), 52,63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Halfin, , Terror in My Soul: Communist Autobiographies on Trial (Cambridge, Mass., 2003), 10, 34, 65,244.Google Scholar

3. “The novel is the privileged genre of Soviet Socialist Realism.” Clark, Katerina, The Soviet Novel: History as Ritual, 3rd ed. (Chicago, 1981; Bloomington, 2000), xiii.Google Scholar Emphasis in the original. Some scholars have maintained that different literary genres rose in prominence in different periods under Iosif Stalin. Yet such arguments do not appear to have changed the larger narrative about the dominance of the novel. See Hodgson, Katharine, Written with the Bayonet: Soviet Russian Poetry of World War Two (Liverpool, 1996)Google Scholar, which argues that “the status of poetry rose considerably in wartime” (15). In Voicing the Soviet Experience: The Poetry of Ol'ga Berggol'ts (Oxford, 2003), Hodgson discusses the “hierarchy of genres in Stalinist culture” (95). In her recent study, Moscow, The Fourth Rome: Stalinism, Cosmopolitanism, and the Evolution of Soviet Culture, 1931-1941 (Cambridge, Mass., 2011), Katerina Clark herself writes of “the rise of poetry as the major genre of the late thirties” (329). Further complicating the picture presented in The Soviet Novel was the rise of “the short satirical or impassioned propagandistic sketch or article for the newspapers” and the “'tender’ lyric” during the war. Ibid., 343. Several scholars of the Khrushchev period have also complicated this history of Soviet literature in writing on the rise of short forms and lyric poetry. More specifically, some have argued that the Khrushchev era witnessed a rise of the ocherk, or sketch. See, for example, Brown, Deming, “The Ocherk: Suggestions toward a Redefinition,” in Harkins, William Edward, ed., American Contributions to the Sixth International Congress of Slavists II (The Hague, 1968), 29–41;Google Scholar and Elveson, Hans, The Rural Ocherk in Russian Literature after the Second World War (Gothenburg, 1975)Google Scholar, cited in Parthe, Kathleen F., Russian Village Prose: The Radiant Past (Princeton, 1992), 14–16.Google Scholar Clark writes of the rise of short forms and the sketch in the “new prose” challenge to socialist realism in the later Khrushchev years. See Clark, , The Soviet Novel, 232–33Google Scholar. Emily Lygo, among others, has written of an “upsurge“ of lyric poetry and the “unprecedented popularity” of poetry in general under Nikita Khrushchev. See her “The Need for New Voices: Writers’ Union Policy towards Young Writers, 1953-1964,” in Jones, Polly, ed., The Dilemmas of De-Stalinization: Negotiating Cultural and Social Change in the Khrushchev Era (London, 2006), 193–208.Google Scholar This article moves beyond these short previous discussions of Khrushchev-era literary form in placing the relationship between form and subjectivity at its center. One work that does the same but to a limited extent is Wolfe, Thomas C., Governing Soviet Journalism: The Press and the Socialist Person after Stalin (Bloomington, 2005), esp. chapter 2, “Agranovskii's Essays,” 71–103.Google Scholar

4. There is in fact something of a tension in Clark's narrative, as she does note some ways in which subjectivity changed under Khrushchev. See Clark, , The Soviet Novel, 231.Google Scholar

5. Here I disagree with a recent article on postwar subjectivity, Tromly, Benjamin, “Intelligentsia Self-Fashioning in the Postwar Soviet Union: Revol't Pimenov's Political Struggle, 1949-57,” Kritika 13, no. 1 (Winter 2012): 151–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which is based on a misunderstanding of an important aspect of the Soviet subjectivity literature. “Rather than a clear rejection of Stalin-era mental strictures,” Tromly writes, “Pimenov's self-fashioning continued the distinctly Soviet practice of treating the self as a politicized subject of history.“ Ibid., 154. In his work on subjectivity, however, Jochen Hellbeck situates the “Soviet practice of treating the self as a politicized subject of history” within a history that begins with the nineteenth-century intelligentsia. Hellbeck, Revolution on My Mind, 7. The degree to which Tromly himself links Pimenov's “self-fashioning” project to emulating the nineteenth-century intelligentsia creates a dissonance in his characterization of the enterprise as “distinctly Soviet.“

6. I use the term person when referring to the average Soviet human being, as conceptualized by the intellectuals with whom I am concerned. I have chosen this word because it appears to me to be the least ideologically or historically charged. I refrain from using the term subject in this case because it is part of my conceptual apparatus and not that of my objects of analysis. I also refrain from using selfija), individual (individuum), personality (lichnosf), or citizen (grazhdanin) because they were invoked by writers and critics to describe what the person ideally should become. The label person does carry its own problems. Novyi sovetskii chelovek is often translated as “new Soviet person,” and some of the intellectuals I engage with in this article used the word chelovek to describe the person they hoped to become. Nevertheless, I find the term person, if not preceded by new Soviet, to be the most fitting one in this context. In fact, many of these intellectuals used it in the sense I do, as will become clear in this article. For reasons of readability—that is, to avoid repetition—there may be minor terminological slippage in this essay.

7. See Krylova, Anna, “Soviet Modernity: Stephen Kotkin and the Bolshevik Predicament,“ Contemporary European History 23, no. 2 (May 2014): 167–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Here I build on the work of Denis Kozlov, who has written of a “Soviet historical consciousness” in the late Soviet period (195391) characterized by an “obsession with historical minutiae” and a “collective search for origins and identities.” Kozlov, Denis, “The Historical Turn in Late Soviet Culture: Retrospectivism, Factography, Doubt, 1953- 1991,” Kritika 2, no. 3 (Summer 2001): 578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. See Hosking, Geoffrey, Beyond Socialist Realism: Soviet Fiction since Ivan Denisovich (New York, 1980), 18, 20–22 Google Scholar; Clark, , The Soviet Novel, 189–90,195, 211-12, 214-15Google Scholar; Prokhorov, Alexander V., “Inherited Discourse: Stalinist Tropes in Thaw Culture” (PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh, 2002), esp. 3,13–14,42,99-101,143,174Google Scholar; Wolfe, , Governing Soviet Journalism, xix, 2,16, 39–40, 45, 47Google Scholar; and Zubok, Vladislav, Zhivago's Children: The Last Russian Intelligentsia (Cambridge, Mass., 2009).Google Scholar The post-Stalin literary intelligentsia's turn to the individual has often been misunderstood. Some scholars have cast this shift as an embrace of a liberal subjectivity. See, for example, Gibian, George, Interval of Freedom: Soviet Literature during the Thaw, 1954-1957 (Minneapolis, 1960), esp. 70–71,73,91,105,143.Google Scholar Others have posited a subjectivity nearly diametrically opposed to its Stalin-era counterpart(s). See, for example, Brown, Deming, Soviet Russian Literature since Stalin (Cambridge, Eng., 1978), 19,153,181–82,296,374;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Zubkova, Elena, Russia after the War: Hopes, Illusions, and Disappointments, 1945-1957 (Armonk, N.Y., 1998), esp. 15–16, 88-89,156-59.Google Scholar

10. Hodgson, , Voicing the Soviet Experience, 95.Google Scholar

11. On this idea with respect to the novel in general, see Watt, Ian, The Rise of the Novel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson, and Fielding (1957; Berkeley, 2001), 15,18,22, 32.Google Scholar

12. Malenkov, Georgii, Otchetnyi doklad XIX s“ezdu partii o rabote tsentral'nogo komiteta VKP(b): 5 oktiabria 1953 g. (Moscow, 1952), 113–15;Google Scholar Khrushchev, N. S., 0 merakh dal'neishego razvitiia sel'skogo khoziastva SSSR: Doklad na Plenume TsKKPSS3 sentiabria 1953 g. (Moscow, 1953), 6.Google Scholar

13. As has been observed, short forms often become more prominent in times of change. See, for example, Brown, , Soviet Russian Literature since Stalin, 145–46.Google Scholar

14. Moser, Charles A., “Introduction: Pushkin and the Russian Short Story,” in Moser, Charles A., ed., The Russian Short Story: A Critical History (Boston, Mass., 1986), xvi.Google Scholar

15. On the short form's inconclusiveness, see Parts, Lyudmila, “Introduction: The Short Story as the Genre of Cultural Transition,” in Parts, Lyudmila, ed., The Russian Twentieth- Century Short Story: A Critical Companion (Brighton, Mass., 2010), xvi.Google Scholar

16. See, for example, Ovechkin, V., “Vsesoiuznoe soveshchanie literatorov, pishushchikh na kolkhoznye temy: Novoe v kolkhoznoi derevne i zadachi khudozhestvennoi literatury,” Literaturnaia gazeta, 29 October 1955,3.Google Scholar

17. O'Connor, Frank, “The Lonely Voice,” in May, Charles E., ed., Short Story Theories (Athens, Ohio, 1976), 86–87 Google Scholar; discussed in Parts, “Introduction,” xv.

18. Ovechkin, Valentin, Sobranie sochinenii v trekh tomakh (Moscow, 1989-99Google Scholar; hereafter SS), 3:208. It should be noted that the entries from Ovechkin's published diaries and personal notebooks ﹛zapisnye knizhki) were published in this posthumous volume under one heading, “From [His] Personal Notebooks and Diaries.” In addition, “a large part of the entries are not dated by the author and, for this reason, the time to which they relate is stated roughly—in the range of this or that period of the writer's life.” Ovechkin, SS, 3:166n1. As a result of this peculiarity, the volume includes no exact dates, only ranges.

19. Tvardovskii, Aleksandr, diary entry, 28 May 1963, Novomirskii dnevnik, 2 vols. (Moscow, 2009) 1:181.Google Scholar

20. Elveson, , The Rural Ocherk, 7,14,122–23.Google Scholar

21. Ibid., 14, 32.

22. For a history of the ocherk, see ibid., 33-47. On the relationship between the ocherk and “real” life, see ibid., 22,122-23; and Vil'chek, L., “Vniz po techeniiu derevenskoi prozy,” Voprosy literatury, 1985, no. 6: 41–43 Google Scholar, cited in Parthe, , Russian Village Prose, 14–16.Google Scholar

23. On the temporal frame as a single day, see Elveson, , The Rural Ocherk, 12.Google Scholar

24. This is the implication of the discussion of the sketch in “Problemy sovremennoi literaturnoi kritiki,” Literaturnaia gazeta, 18 April 1957, 1–3 Google Scholar; and Lakshin, Vladimir, diary entry, 30 November 1958, Novyi mir vo vremena Khrushcheva: Dnevnik i poputnoe, 1953-1964 (Moscow, 1991), 30.Google Scholar

25. Lakshin, , diary entry, 22 December 1961, Novyi mir vo vremena Khrushcheva, 52.Google Scholar

26. Lakshin, , diary entry, 8 February 1963, ibid., 102.Google Scholar

27. See, for example, Pobozhii, A., “Mertvaia doroga (Iz zapisok inzhenera-izyskatelia),“ Novyi mir, 1964, no. 8: 89–181.Google Scholar

28. Lakshin, , diary entry, 12 July 1963, Novyi mir vo vremena Khrushcheva, 141.Google Scholar

29. Tvardovskii, , diary entry, 28 November 1963, Novomirskii dnevnik, 1:194–95Google Scholar. The significance of memoirs was noticed by other critics too. See, for example, Mashinskii, S., “0 memuarno-avtobiograncheskom zhanre,” Voprosy literatury, 1960, no. 6: 130.Google Scholar Jane Gary Harris writes that Mashinskii's article “essentially initiated the serious study of autobiography and documentary prose in Soviet literary scholarship.” Harris, Jane Gary, “Diversity of Discourse: Autobiographical Statements in Theory and Praxis,” in Harris, Jane Gary, ed., Autobiographical Statements in Twentieth-Century Russian Literature (Princeton, 1990), 18–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For further discussion of the rise of the documentary form, see “Literatura. Dokument. Fakt,” Inostrannaia literatura, 1966, no. 8: 178–207 Google Scholar; “Nasha anketa: Zhiznennyi material i khudozhestvennoe obobshchenie,” Voprosy literatury, 1966, no. 9:3–62 Google Scholar; Subbotin, V. and Lazarev, L., “Dialog,” Literaturnaia gazeta, 8 May 1967 Google Scholar; and Mann, Iu., “K sporam o khudozhestvennom dokumente,” Novyi mir, 1968, no. 8: 244–54Google Scholar, all cited in Harris, “Diversity of Discourse,” 19n44. For other discussions of Khrushchev-era documentary forms, see, for example, Gibian, , Interval of Freedom, 32–33.Google Scholar Scholars have also written of documentariness in relation to other artistic forms, which suggests the existence of a larger cultural phenomenon. On painting, see Reid, Susan Emily, “Destalinization and the Remodernization of Soviet Art: The Search for a Contemporary Realism, 1953-1963” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1996), 163–65, 262, 289, 348-49, 369, 469.Google Scholar On film, see, among others, Prokhorov, “Inherited Discourse,” 142, 203-4, 206, 261-62. (Prokhorov deals extensively with literature, too.) On an empirical imperative in the fields of linguistics and cybernetics, whose relationship to the trends discussed in the present article deserves further investigation, see Zubok, , Zhivago's Children, 133–34,139.Google Scholar I am indebted here to Diana West, whose work on cybernetics has compelled me to think more about the links between literature and science under Khrushchev.

30. Ovechkin, SS, 3:179.Google Scholar

31. Tolczyk, Dariusz, See No Evil: Literary Cover-Ups and Discoveries of the Soviet Camp Experience (New Haven, 1999), 258.Google Scholar

32. Lakshin, diary entry, 5 August 1963, Novyi mir vo vremena Khrushcheva, 146. On the nouveau roman, see Morrissette, Bruce, “International Aspects of the ‘Nouveau Roman,'“ Contemporary Literature 11, no. 2 (Spring 1970): 155–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33. Hellbeck, Revolution on My Mind, 46–52 Google Scholar

34. Ibid., 8,51-52.

35. Ibid., 55.

36. Ibid., 48. On the diary's subjectivism, see Wolfson, Boris, “Escape from Literature: Constructing the Soviet Self in Yuri Olesha's Diary of the 1930s,” Russian Review 63, no. 4 (October 2004): 609–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37. See, for example, Panova, Vera, “Vremena goda: Iz letopisei goroda Enska,“ originally published in Novyi mir (November-December 1953), in Panova, Vera, Sobranie sochinenii vpiati tomakh (Leningrad, 1987-78), 2:140–57,2:209, 2:292.Google Scholar

38. On the diary's lack of a conclusion, see Rosenwald, Lawrence, Emerson and the Art of the Diary (Oxford, 1988), 8n9.Google Scholar

39. Elveson, The Rural Ocherk, 12.Google Scholar

40. On diaries published in Komsomol'skaia pravda, see Huxtable, Simon, “A Compass in the Sea of Life: Soviet Journalism, the Public, and the Limits of Reform after Stalin, 1953-1968” (PhD diss., University of London, 2012)Google Scholar, chapter 3, “Edited Subjects: ‘Letters, Diaries and Notebooks of Our Contemporaries,’ and the Rise and Fall of ‘Romantika.'” For another diurnal project, see the discussion of the Izvestiia publishing house's Den mira project in Wolfe, Governing Soviet Journalism, 48-70.

41. Ivanter, Nina, “Snova avgust, povest',” Novyi mir, 1959, no. 8: 9–10. Emphasis added.Google Scholar

42. Aizenshtok, I., introduction to Nikitenko, A. V., Dnevnik v trekh tomakh (Leningrad, 1955-55), 1:vi.Google Scholar

43. Tvardovskii, A., diary entry, 26 October 1956, “Iz rabochikh tetradei (19531960),“ Znamia, 1989, no. 7:187.Google Scholar

44. Tvardovskii, diary entry, 8 September 1960, ibid., 189. See also, for example, his diary entry for 30 September 1960, ibid., 199; and 8 March 1961, Novomirskii dnevnik, 1:25.

45. Shaginian, Marietta, Dnevnikpisatelia (19501952) (Moscow, 1953).Google Scholar

46. Lifshits, Mikhail, “Dnevnik Marietty Shaginian,” Novyi mir, 1954, no. 2: 206–31.Google Scholar Between Stalin's death, in March 1953, and February 1954, Lifshits's “Dnevnik Marietty Shaginian” was only the second review of a single title published in Novyi mir's “ Literaturnaia kritika” section. The other, V. Pankov's “Roman F. Panferova ‘Volga-matushka reka',” was only ten pages long. See Novyi mir, 1954, no. 1: 247–57.Google Scholar Another book review section, “Knizhno-zhurnal'noe obozrenie,” featured much shorter reviews.

47. Mitchell, Stanley, “Mikhail Alexandrovich Lifshits (19051983),” Oxford Art Journal 20, no. 2 (1997): 24, 27–28, 33CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48. Pomerantsev, V., “Ob iskrennosti v literature,” Novyi mir, 1953, no. 12: 242.Google Scholar

49. Ovechkin, Valentin, “Trudnaia vesna,” SS, vol. 2, Raionnye budni. P'esy (Moscow, 1989), 250.Google Scholar This installment was originally published as Ovechkin, V., “Trudnaia vesna, chast’ vtoraia,” Novyi mir, 1956, no. 5: 37–68.Google Scholar

50. See, for example, Riurikov, B., “0 bogatstve iskusstva,” Literaturnaia gazeta, 20 February 1954,3–4 Google Scholar.

51. See, for example, Martens, Lorna, The Diary Novel (Cambridge, Eng., 1985), 38,91, 115-16.Google Scholar

52. On first-person narration in Khrushchev-era literature, see Brown, , Soviet Russian Literature since Stalin, 150–51,183-84, 273.Google Scholar For a discussion of the sketch's relationship to this type of subjectivity, see again chapter 2 of Wolfe's Governing Soviet Journalism, “Agranovskii's Essays.“

53. Erenburg, Il'ia, Ottepel: Povest’ (Moscow, 1954), 23.Google Scholar

54. Troiankovskii, Vitalii, “Novye liudi shestidesiatykh godov,” in Fomin, Valerii, ed., Kinomatograf ottepeli: Dokumenty i svidetel'stva, bk. 2 (Moscow, 2002), 6,10-12,15, 20, 30, 51;Google Scholar Vladimir Semerchuk, “Smena vekh': Na iskhode ottepeli,” in ibid., 128-29; and Prokhorov, Alexander, “The Adolescent and the Child in the Cinema of the Thaw,” Studies in Russian and Soviet Cinema 1, no. 2 (March 2007): 115–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55. Gladilin, A., Khronika vremen Viktora Podgurskogo: Sostavlennaia iz dnevnikov, letopisei, istoricheskikh sobytii i vospominanii sovremennikov (Moscow, 1958).Google Scholar For background on Gladilin, see Gladilin, Anatoly, The Making and Unmaking of a Soviet Writer: My Story of the “Young Prose” of the Sixties and After, trans. Lapeza, David (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1979).Google Scholar I thank Ross Ufberg for bringing the novella to my attention.

56. Ovechkin, SS, 3:174.

57. Ibid., 174-75.

58. Ovechkin, “V torn zhe raione,” SS, 2:111-12.

59. Ibid., 88.

60. Tvardovskii, A., “Za daliu dal’ (Glavy iz knigi),” in Aliger, M. N. et al., eds., Literaturnaia Moskva: Literaturno-khudozhdestvennyi sbornik Moskovskikh pisatelei, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1956) 1:495.Google Scholar

61. Ilin, V. V., Ne priacha glaz: Aleksandr Tvardovskii. Literaturnoe okruzhenie, tvorcheskie sviazi (Smolensk, 2000), 77, 79, 82,86-88,91-94.Google Scholar

62. This occurred at a meeting of the editorial boards of Writers’ Union publications on 25 January 1954. Stenogramma soveshchaniia, Tsentral'nyi arkhiv soiuz sovetskikh pisatelei SSP SSSR (Tsentr. arkhiv. SSP SSSR), opis (op.) 28 postoiannoe khranenie (p/kh.), delo (d.) 49, cited in Romanova, R. M., Aleksandr Tvardovskii: Trudy i dni (Moscow, 2006), 411–12.Google Scholar

63. Tvardovskii, A., diary entry, 4 May 1958, “Iz rabochikh tetradei,” Znamia, 1989, no. 8:176.Google Scholar

64. This also occurred at the meeting of the editorial boards referenced above.

65. Tvardovskii, , diary entry, 8 October 1954, “Iz rabochikh tetradei,” Znamia, 1989, no. 7:144.Google Scholar

66. See, for example, Dorosh, Efim, “Derevenskii dnevnik,” in Aliger et al., eds., Literaturnaia Moskva, 2:549–626.Google Scholar

67. Soloukhin, Vladimir, “Vladimirskie proselki,” Novyi mir, 1957, no. 9: 82–141, and Novyi mir, 1957, no. 10: 75-134.Google Scholar

68. lashin, Aleksandr, diary entry, 15 May 1961, Sobranie sochinenii v trekh tomakh (Moscow, 1986; hereafter SS), 3:269.Google Scholar Emphasis in the original.

69. Lakshin, Vladimir, “Tri mery vremeni,” Novyi mir, 1966, no. 3:222.Google Scholar

70. “Dnevnik Niny Kosterinoi,” Novyi mir, 1962, no. 12:31–105.Google Scholar

71. On his inability to write, see lashin, diary entries, 29 and 30 July 1960,31 July 1960, and 2 August 1960, SS, 3:263.

72. On his native village and region as they relate to his childhood (some of the discussion implicit), see, for example, diary entries, 11 June 1958, ibid., 3:246; 14 July 1958, ibid., 3:247; and 10 April 1959, ibid., 3:256.

73. See, for example, diary entries, 10 May 1960, ibid., 3:267; 9 January 1962, ibid., 3:271; and 21 February 1962, ibid., 3:278.

74. See, for example, diary entries, 14 June 1958, ibid., 3:247; 23 August 1963, ibid., 3:302; and 15 August 1964, ibid., 3:306.

75. See, for example, diary entries, 14 December 1958, ibid., 3:254; 9 March 1959, ibid., 3:256; and 25 May 1962, ibid., 3:280.

76. Diary entry, 12 November 1962, ibid., 3:288-89.

77. See, for example, diary entries, 11 May 1962, ibid., 3:279; 5 February 1963, ibid., 3:289-90; and 12 May 1963, ibid., 3:291.

78. lashin, A., “Vologodskaia svad'ba,” Novyi mir, 1962, no. 12:3–26.Google Scholar For this particular criticism of the sketch, see Aleksei Petrov, “Vologzhane o ‘Vologodskoi svad'be,'” Vologodskii komsomolets, 8 February 1963, reproduced in Tikhomirova, S. A., ed., Krai dobrai chudes: Iubileinoe vozvrashchenie Aleksandra Iashina, Literaturnaia kritika, Istoricheskii portret (Vologda, 2008), 139.Google Scholar For his response to criticism of the sketch, see various entries for 1963 in Iashin, SS, vol. 3.

79. On this fear, see Iashin, , diary entry, 2 November 1963, SS, 3:305.Google Scholar

80. Diary entry, 28 November 1963, ibid., 3:305.

81. Fedor Abramov, diary entry, 24 September 1957. The version of the diary I have consulted is the original, located in the personal archive of Liudmila Krutikova-Abramova, Abramov's widow, in her St. Petersburg apartment. For in-depth analysis of the diary, see Pinsky, Anatoly, “The Individual after Stalin: Fedor Abramov, Russian Intellectuals, and the Revitalization of Soviet Socialism, 1953-1962” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 2011).Google Scholar

82. Abramov, diary entry, 5 October 1957.

83. Tvardovskii, , diary entry, 19 March 1955, “Iz rabochikh tetradi,” Znamia, 1989, no. 7:159.Google Scholar Emphasis in the original.

84. This conclusion is inspired by but not entirely based on White, Hayden, The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation (Baltimore, 1987).Google Scholar