Diet

Open letter to Leonid Kostyukov

Deeply liable Lenya,

The other day, I read your program article “Normal Life and its significance”, I found it in many ways wrong, but seductive, and therefore I object to you in public, and not in private.

The pathos of your appeal at first glance is simple and pretty: it would be good for all of us not to stare, as bewitched, at the fuss and the tricks of an alien generally accepted moral norm of the asocial minority, which, in your opinion, is included in the criminals, rich and politics, and pay more attention to personal cares and interests, thereby affirmed in everyday normality and respectable. It would be nice not to turn the criticism of the state into an obsessive idea that paralyzes our abilities and prevents everyone from doing their own business.

You offer your classification of people. "There are people who are striving to live normally , that is, to enter into open and honest relations with society-to give something, to receive something accordingly. <... there are other people-configured for different or configured for more. <...> configured to differently : for self-destruction, frank maniacs, etc. Titted for more -<...> receive more for the same work, work less for the same money, earn money without working, passing something in to work, etc. <...> Perhaps I will say something cruel and cynical now.

And indeed - cruelly and cynical. And in combination with the church, a candle and the Lord, mentioned at the beginning of your article, and even more so. (I recalled the project put forward by one old acquaintance on the eradication of drunkenness in Russia: open the door wide open in a wine warehouse with a length of several kilometers so that all the drunks have drunk there. Literally. Literally.)

Your article is a response to the traditional domestic intelligent evil splendor at the state. I may not be less like that I do not like professional denigractors from the half -turn - for dishonesty and voluptuousness, aesty enthusiasm and selective vision. But you recommend, in return for black glasses, not honest colorless, but equipped with shores. I also do not like such optics, especially when the recommendation does not come from the authorities, which, by definition, is supposed to stuff the subjects with sedatives, but from a colleague in the workshop.

Let's get back to your "elements table". In the proposed classification, a few, but socially significant social category was circumvented by remarkable silence: people “configured for more” in the most common sense who is addressed to the philistine shout “what do you need more!?”

From the bourgeois (here I use the word in its neutral -sociological meaning) the norms are knocked out not only of different Certificates of criminals, but also by Leo Tolstoy, and Sakharov, and Khodorkovsky, for whom their way of thinking and actions have not become “optional” in relation to the main kind of activity - a writer, a scientist, an entrepreneur, but an urgent matter of life, even a vocation. And do not take into account this kind of anormality - philistinism already in the second, condemning sense of the word. The philistinism, by the way, from a worthy middle class that gives society stability, turns into a repulsive and dangerous class, only the contentment of its own - from all the same - the norm is thrown into his head and the philistine majority goes on the offensive. With the norm, it is generally necessary to hold the ear in general: it is impossible without it at all, only with it is unbearable. Not to mention the fact that the norm, fortunately or unfortunately, is a relative concept and, among other things, indicates a personal scale of its adherent and guardian. For example, the surrounding normal life, including the life of his family, seemed a crazy house, was a mentioned Tolstoy, and in his gaze there is his own reason - and Tolstoy proposed his norm in return for the generally accepted.

The course of your thoughts, how purposely, the notes from one of my two-three years ago, which even opposition to the opposition, the customers seemed excessive: "The current alignment of public forces in Russia contributes to the development of a non-middle-class manner, but a outlandish estate-mantant. In this situation, a license for entering the middle class is issued by the state in exchange for loyalty." Power and expects from us non -participation, transparently hints to us, like small children, that our main task is to play our toys and do not interfere under your feet. And you there ...

The current residence in Russia is humiliating - "if you need to explain, then do not explain." This well -being is not yet a zone, but not freedom, but the so -called "chemistry" - the settlements are partly of free, unfinished people, forced, however, to be considered a criminal device of their habitat. The matter of taste and temperament, of course, but to many, I am sure that such a spoon of tar spoils the pleasure of current acquisitions and messages that you rightly write about.

I am not a hero myself, I don’t get anyone on exploits, but there is at least a professional duty of humanitaria - to call a spade a spade. What is this "normality" that does not look from the principle in the direction of misfortune, evil and arbitrariness? What is the respectable in the tower from ivory (in the local climate still walrus) bones differs from decent filtering? Power (such is its nature), like gas or cockroaches, occupies the entire volume provided. Why should she play along?

Manifestos like yours are given a patent for civil apathy to the domestic middle class, at the same time endowing the consciousness of their own rightness and moral straightforwardness.

Like many people convinced of the correctness of your answer, you inadvertently make a number of frauds, allowing you to taxure for the desired conclusion. I will not dispute your cautious major calculations of the economic properties for my complete incompetence, but I will enter Hollywood.

In connection with Protestantism, in shy addiction to which you admit, your reproach of America (!) Sounds: “We cannot help but observe American values. Moreover, they are assimilated to some extent. We are comforting that they are based on a rather healthy Protestant foundation. But, it seems to me, I groped for the place where the United States was remote as much as possible from the origins. Which Hollywood depicts the romantic robbers of the bank. We, Lenya, apparently, have different TVs. For me - for twenty years that I have standing my back to my own and my dishes - it seemed that the folklore predictability of medium Hollywood products consists just in the inevitable celebration of "cops" without fear and reproach. When successful robbers occasionally appear, I live up and turn around to face the screen.

For clarity, you talk about one Moscow grove, the refuge of bandits, and with reservations summarize that "the thickening of people who do not strive for normal life outline the zones where you should not walk." Oh how! Such briefing is appropriate in a caring guide, and not in the appeal of the "thinking reed" to fellow citizens. What kind of good gentleman's set can form over time - from internal censorship, a scheme of safe routes and a biological commandant! Everyday prudence and ideal ideas, in this case civilian, are phenomena of different nature: the first in kinship with the instinct of self -preservation, the ability to adapt and survive, the second is the fruit of spiritual efforts. We need both of these “hemispheres” of the psyche, but they do not duplicate each other, on the contrary, often come into conflict, especially among those who, like Khodorkovsky, “more than others are necessary”. And it is somehow strange and inconvenient to repeat these alphabetical truths to you, a well-known writer and culturalist.

I know you well for a long time. You, give up to me, are much better than what you preach today. Everyone who has crossed the threshold of your house will understand that you are still a bourgeois: life in a cut, unrestraining, a crowd of young writers, and so on. Most likely you were brought by rationality, "Mehmat". But you know no worse than mine from art experience, how important a sense of relevance is. The civil diet you recommended is quite inappropriate in the current situation, and especially in the lips of the cultural figure.

Sincerely,

Your S. G.