Some years ago the American-Russian Institute organized in New York a series of symposia on various phases of Soviet life and civilization — among them a round-table discussion on the nature and tendencies of Soviet literature. This round-table was notable as a friendly meeting of various writers, critics, and scholars, of whom by no means all could have been called favorable to the Soviet system either politically or socially. Yet most of those present had at least some first-hand acquaintance with Soviet letters, and were amply qualified to express a reasoned opinion upon the aims and the spirit which they reflect.

At this conference, the discussion eventually narrowed down to an effort at denning the nature of socialist realism — a definition which, it must be admitted, proved singularly elusive. By one speaker, socialist realism was termed merely a method difficult of exact characterization. Maxim Gorki was quoted as having said that bourgeois realism is only partially critical, while socialist realism is critical throughout. Other speakers saw the essence of socialist realism in its positive or optimistic spirit, or alleged that, where bourgeois realism deals with the individual, the socialist brand is primarily concerned with the mass. In other words, a Soviet critic would hold that bourgeois realism is interested in isolated personages, while socialist realism portrays the individual in his relations to the society of which he is a part.