Once again about oak and calf

The form of correspondence with readers-listeners becomes, it seems, traditional. Again I have a letter, and again tough. And again - fortunately, intelligible enough to be worthy of controversy.

So:

“Dear Viktor Shenderovich!
Although no, it’s wrong: just Viktor Shenderovich. I respect the program that you are conducting, but - alas! - I no longer respect you. And the reason for this is the transfer of June 16. Rather, not the transmission itself, but your statements in it about A.I. Solzhenitsyn.

(...) Tell me: you never had the idea that you owe to a large extent to Alexander Isaevich (well, of course, not only to him, but also to him) for your giggling over stupid politicians on the air? You did not think about the fact that in the years preceding when you were proud (either hatred or indifference) to wear your pioneering tie, the Komsomol icon and, perhaps, even a party ticket - already in those years he did a lot (comparisons not to be brought to Russia) and, in particular, for your personal, now harmless life? There are quite a lot in order to do not separate his views completely, then at least do not treat them with ridicule. You reproached him that he did not talk with Putin about Beslan and the current political prisoners - they say, they did not seem important to him important issues. There is a phrase (I quote further from memory), which F. Ranevskaya expressed in response to someone's "Well, what is there, in Mona Lisa? I do not like her!". F. G. answered this way: "This dam is the right to choose herself, whoever she likes and who does not." So in the case of Beslan, I do not think that A.I. The questions that are not included in the subject of his conversation with Putin are indifferent. And I do not think that you have the right to argue that it seems to him an important issue, and what is not ...
Do you have the opportunity to recognize - who has any priorities? A. I. said so much about the political prisoners and about the Soviet regime (including the events in Chi Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic), which he has the right to choose himself with whom and what to talk about. Don't you think this is obvious?
Boris "

“Just Boris!

I'll start with private.

First. I do not “giggle” over politicians on the air - I am fighting Beluga, looking around the abominable horizons of Russian politics; Just like a person who is not alien to literature, I try to howl more in a vigorous ... second. The irony that has so annoyed you in relation to Solzhenitsyn should not be confused with rudeness; Irony is a reliable way to enlarge the meaning, that's all. And this method should not be applied to a taboo, even if the subject of consideration is a classic.

Now in the essence of the issue.

On your first rhetorical questions (did I have thoughts ... Did I think ...) There are simple affirmative answers: it arose, thought. And not only thought, but many times, publicly, expressed personal gratitude to the author of “Ivan Denisovich”, “Matrenin of the court”, “The Gulag Archipelago” ... - books that changed my (as I suspect, and your) idea of the latest history of the homeland; who have changed ourselves.

I express this gratitude and once again - it cannot go away and can not go anywhere, as the role played by Solzhenitsyn in the collapse of the criminal and false communist regime will not go anywhere.

The technology of public progress prompted by him - “non -participation in the lies” - works wonderful after the collapse of communism; I hope in my case too.

But this respect and this gratitude is not a reason to freeze in a prayer pose forever. Solzhenitsyn is not Mona Lisa, Beslan - even more so; Here is not a matter of aesthetic taste and choice, and Ranevskaya has nothing to do with it.

Unlike Mona Lisa, Solzhenitsyn is a large public figure, by self-awareness, in general, the Prophet (a way of returning to Russia has completely confirmed the accuracy of the portrait written by Voinovich in the novel “Moscow-2042”). And the public figure is the public that society is discussing his words. Or his silence, which is more expressive than all words.

For Solzhenitsyn’s silence in the eighth year of Chekist omnipotence in Russia is yelling!

"Do you have the opportunity to recognize - who has any priorities?" - You ask maliciously, and this question also seems rhetorical to you. I possess Boris, of course, possess! In order to “recognize the priorities” of public figures, you do not have to be a psychic - a public person is all in a palm, in words and deeds. After all, we perfectly recognized Sakharov’s priorities, Andropov’s priorities - isn't it?

Do you think that Solzhenitsyna, although he did not talk about this with the president, outrages the federal lies and blood of the children of Beslan, concerns the appearance of political prisoners? What is your assumption based on? Did he say anything private? To you, neighbors in the country? Funny conversation. Is he Solzhenitsyn or grandmother at the entrance?

Alexander Isaevich-a man of intelligible socio-political views, knows how to formulate-God forbid everyone, and there is nothing accidental in his texts and speeches! He told Putin everything he wanted to tell him, he said nothing of everything he wanted to keep silent, and they were satisfied with each other.

Where such a unity of souls is another question, and I tried to answer it in that program on Echo of Moscow, noting that both Solzhenitsyn and Putin are obviously anti -liberal values, that’s all.

I note that on this main point you have no objections: the entire pathos of your letter, in essence, consists in calling me to answer for violation of the hierarchy: how dare? Who did you raise your paw? ..

Strange.

Solzhenitsyn, of course, has the right to choose with whom and what to talk about, but we, of course, have the right to discuss the content of his conversations - at least when he talks not to his wife, but with the president of the state on the occasion of receiving the state prize!

The scale of the figure should not only not become a brake for such a discussion - it should catalyze this discussion! For when Oksana Robski is silent about the same Beslan, it was losing weight, but when Solzhenitsyn is silent, the matter is bad.

As for public merits as an indulgence, I do not think that the social role in Russia of the poet Nekrasov was lower than the current role of Alexander Isaevich, but when the poet supported the suppression of the Polish uprising, he encountered public contempt, quite deserved. To the honor of Nekrasov, he realized the deservedness of this contempt. Remember the textbook - about the incorrect sound of Lyra?

Nikolai Alekseevich was capable of reflection and introspection, but society helped him in this, putting a mirror of public opinion before the great poet.

We did not help Great Solzhenitsyn.

He himself - with his public favor, helped Putin to deepen the current social fainting.