Controversy is a form of communication that is so visibly missing in our public space. Polemics should mean sharp discussions within political, literary or scientific discussions. Polemic is the art of arguing and why not the art of refuting opposing views. Marinko Vorgić in the text "Who accommodated Montenegrin Serbs?” opens up a series of topics suitable for polemics. The title of the text is a paraphrase of the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit". The said movie is a fun mix of comedy and mystery. A fluffy film that has almost been forgotten if it wasn't Mr. Vorgić. The film follows a detective tasked with exonerating Roger Bunny (a cartoon character), Bunny is framed for a crime he did not commit. The association and connection of a people with a cute cartoon character is unconvincing. Highly recommended for younger generations if they haven't seen the movie.
In the text, Vorgric emphasizes his ambition to close the stories of Serbian modernism in a purely aesthetic framework. So he suddenly states: "So, let's be precise, nobody pushed the Serbs in Montenegro into anti-modernity, but their proclaimed and self-proclaimed representatives persistently showed an ignorant attitude towards most of what essentially belongs to Serbian modernism through their cultural activities."
Right at the beginning, there is a problem, the anti-modernity of a national and linguistic community is stated without evidence and valid arguments. Another problem arises when we ask who these proclaimed representatives are. Completely vague and arbitrary, it will be shown that this tone prevails in the entire text. A careful reader will not find proclaimed representatives even in the vastness of the Internet. For these others, come on, they will find each other. Vorgić will point out that the local Serbs have been harmed by the fact that their ability to identify with modernist models in culture has been narrowed. The author complains that "only those authors of Serbian modernism and the interwar avant-garde who have made their poetic and ideological convictions nationally aware over time are selected. Hence the frequent and passionate grasping Crnjanski.” The lines that are a signal for alarm, what has Crnjanski hidden? Vorgić introduces ideological criteria into issues of art and literature. Don't mix frogs and Grandma! The author clearly observes that many so-called Modernists today are forgotten. Normally, only good literature remains, only good authors remain, marginal, incidental, they disappear, oblivion covers them.
Vorgić respects that there was or is ongoing tribulation (this is not clear from the text) of non-national modernist authors because they do not fit "into some cultural canon of Montenegrin Serbia, that Serbia was offered a modernism that was devoid of those ideological and aesthetic characteristics that define it ". A banal and unsustainable claim, without any decent theoretical viability. The author is on the slippery slope of qualifications, prejudices that cannot be defended. No one serious will take ideological or national criteria when talking about literature. Give up e.g. Lalić because he was a convinced communist would be nonsense that is not worth talking about. Not to mention writers from the "other side", it's not that there aren't any.
When Vorgić needs a theoretical basis, he refers to Radomir Konstatinović, scaring the bear with a screen, the villains would say.
We find a serious problem in the text "Who accommodated the Montenegrin Serbs?" In the statements that right-conservative and whatever culture created such a policy. The author seriously underestimates the literary and any other taste of the audience of a national and linguistic community. The claim that Serbs in Montenegro are conservative is not supported by valid evidence. What is their literary taste? Difficult question, there is no relevant research on the interests of the reading community in Montenegro. Vorgić recognizes conservatism, right-wing political elements, the church, a reborn dynasty, etc. as a problem. He also believes that the cultural model is devoid of "all those "left", civic, globalist and liberal..." and again confusion. It is not advisable to introduce non-artistic criteria into questions of literature. We will not prove that there were excellent writers inclined to different and even dangerous ideologies, there were... Let's remember Hamsun i Pound, they paid for their beliefs with their heads Grigorije Božović, Niko Bartulović and many others. Manuscripts do not burn, when the stigma has passed, readers have met interesting authors, it is a capital work Gojko Tešić to bring banned writers closer to readers. It just so happened that those banned were so modern that they still have readers today. The work of Gojko Tešić is also important for potential polemicists, let's just remember the polemic anthology book "Evil Wizards".
However, alas, they were good writers, of course there were "correct" ones, but they were also bad writers and were forgotten. Quite naturally. The claim that they are equally responsible for the development of Serbian culture and thought is disputed Svetozar Markovic i Slobodan Jovanovic, Jovan Skerlic i Todor Manojlović, Miloš Crnjanski and Marko Ristic, Zoran Mišić and Radomir Konstantinović. Certainly not all are equally important. Some of the mentioned are unimportant, an educated reader will already know his way around, he will recognize the important ones, he will separate the essential from the unimportant. Introduction Vase Pelagić i Dimitrija Tucović in this by nature serious topic did not bring results. Pelagić and his most important work People's teacher they found themselves in a society that does not suit them. The folk teacher is a book present in a large number of home libraries, but we will not talk about herbs and folk remedies, we are talking about art.
Emphasizing the importance of the polemic, I point out with regret that the text "Who accommodated the Montenegrin Serbs?" irrelevant and ideologically burdened, theoretically confused and biased. It's a shame, there was room for discussion in this field, the big question is how much all national and language communities read and what they read. Maybe they are reading the wrong things. It may apply:
"In principle, they rarely read anyway
And the fact that they read the wrong things
So why don't they turn off their electricity" (Johnny Stulic)
How fragile is the cultural plant resistant to everything it is exposed to in modern Montenegro? There are many questions, there is a large field for discussion and controversy.
I admit Vorgić's good taste when it comes to movies, although the title of the movie is a paraphrase Robert Zemeckis is not relevant in this case. Although the tastes are not discussed. I humbly believe that "For now without a good title" reflects our reality more faithfully.
(The author is a professor literature)
Bonus video:
