We use cookies in order to improve the quality and usability of the HSE website. More information about the use of cookies is available here, and the regulations on processing personal data can be found here. By continuing to use the site, you hereby confirm that you have been informed of the use of cookies by the HSE website and agree with our rules for processing personal data. You may disable cookies in your browser settings.
✖The article discusses dissemination in Great Britain and United States of America of the English-language addition of the magazine “International literature" in the period of active work of International Union of Revolutionary Writers’ (1932-1936)
Unlike bigger sections of the International Union of Revolutionary Writers (IURW), such as the German, American or French ones, the British section was created in two stages, first in 1930-2 and then in 1935. Whereas the second attempt was quite successful and the British section of the IURW of 1934 can be studied through a variety of bureaucratic documents, the first left hardly any typically bureaucratic paperwork, but correspondence between the British and Soviet representatives of the union. The letters come together as an adventure story that is of interest within the institutional history of the IURW as well as a wider context of the Soviet cultural diplomacy.
The chapter deals with the history of the main and unique literary magazine of the Spanish exile in the USSR, which was the Spanish version of the journal International Literature. Analysis of the publishing policy in the 40ties allows to reveal and specify this period in the magazine's story.
The article focuses on the history of the English version of Internatsionalnaya Literatura, International Literature, addressing different aspects of the institutional history of the magazine over the 1930s. The magazine is discussed as a mouthpiece of IURW (International Union of Revolutionary Writers), so the published and (newly revealed) archival materials are used to show the connection and, more importantly the difference between the two institutions, presented by more or less the same set of people. Another perspective is introduced by the editorial correspondence with the readers from Britain. The institutes under consideration are discussed as both cultural and political entities and analyzed from these two perspectives.