The major plays of Nikolai Erdman /

These two titles provide the reader with excellent translations of Erdman's major and minor work. Since no canonical text exists for either of Erdman's major plays, Freedman sifted through the author's often self-censored rewrites in order to create versions that show the plays off to their best advantage. In the tradition of Gogol and Sukhovo-Kobylin, Erdman almost single handedly invented the dramatic subgenre of the "urban grotesque," which was revived in the 1970s and 1980s. The thwarted production history of Erdman's major plays in early Soviet Russia is legendary. One easily sees why Meyerhold was attracted to Erdman's grotesque characters and absurd situations and why Stanislavsky's enthusiasm for the pieces was confused. Despite their heavily satirical tone, the plays rediscover humanity and even heroism in unlikely people and places. State-lionized proletarians, state-vilified "former people," and state-sanctioned bureaucrats demonstrate the endless capacity for human self-delusion regardless of class. The inversions may seem alien to some, but these highly stageworthy plays successfully align the strange with the familiar. The time-capsule, occasional pieces in A Meeting About Laughter were written for the early Soviet theater. They remind the reader how much dramatic writing satirized the new society's literal mindedness and self-importance. Erdman's genre and character mixing (e.g., Hamlet as a circus strongman) recalls the radical strangeness of "legitimate" stage experiments of the period, the sheer ambitiousness of the cabaret and "small forms" stages, and the expanding role of the stage director. The undergraduate reader may be mystified by specific references, but there are enough familiar know-it-alls and know-nothings on display to entertain. Erdman presents his society's debate over whether to create "joyous, cheerful art" or "thoughtful, serious laughter" through a grim grin. Freedman's translations capture the confident clumsiness of Erdman's targets, and his introduction and appendixes are informative. This volume reopens a valuable window on a cultural scene that was far more variegated, contentious, and self-parodying than a simple recitation and analysis of full-length play texts and state theater repertories can suggest. Both titles are recommended for all academic levels. S. Golub Brown University