Multifantomic writer

With the writer Zakhar Prilepin, I feel the blood kinship, since one day I have already suffered for him - from Jews and liberals. It was a long time ago, back in August, and it still hurts. For the respected writer Mikhail Edelstein not only severely expelled me, among many, for the former uncritical in relation to Prilepin, but also roughly twisted. Once, analyzing the writer’s dispute with the banker Aven, I spoke out in the sense that among the National Bolsheviks “there are smart, kind, and understanding,” and called for pity. Edelstein, on the other hand, retold me like this: "... the banker did not see the" smart, kind and understanding "(honestly, it was written!) National natives of potential associates in the construction of new Russia." Especially this "honest word! .." made an indelible impression.

However, my critic could also be understood. He dismantled the Milpin’s message to Comrade Stalin, who had threatened in those days, and there was no to subtleties. Apparently, I wanted to nail to the shameful pillar of everyone who said at least one kind word about the author of this really unprecedented letter. Moreover, slanderous in relation to an unforgettable leader, because it was as if he “put in seven layers of Russian people in order to save the life of“ liberal seeds is a pure 58th article, in its most shot varieties. The stupidity was justified only by creative considerations. In fact, to embark on such a powerful metaphor, about seven layers, and not expand it to the size of the article - this must be born as an riot police, not a writer.

Since then, I have been trying to see the sprouts of good in Zakhara Prilepin again in order to justify myself in front of the liberals, to which I belong to myself, not to mention Edelstein. The very sprouts that he saw at Sanka and tried to carefully convey to Peter Aven. Because Zakhar Prilepin is a really good writer and, in my opinion, a sincere, sincere person. The question arises: why is a good writer and, in my opinion, a sincere, sincere person from time to time writes fascizoid nonsense?

The new text on the old topic seems to give the key to this riddle.

The fact is that the author of "pathologies", as befits a real writer, lives in a certain invented world, where literary heroes usually replace real people. The same Russophobe with a pipe, occupied in the 40s of the last century by the salvation of ungrateful seed. Or here is the “liberal”, which, it turns out, is “is an unconditional bearer of all political correctness and all kinds of tolerance ... sincerely wants to bear the name Pussy Riot on banners”, etc., and the ideal future for such a liberal is to “die” workers and peasants. On the contrary, the people, as Evgeny Nikolaevich, formulates sweepingly, he was “not liberal”, and if he infuriates him, it is some kind of underputinism of the Putin era. Give us free rein, tells us on behalf of your character, the Russian people, Zakhar Prilepin, we would have divorced such a “militaristic rhetoric” and “Orthodox obscurantism”, and “with a severe and gloomy look ...” In short, it would not seem enough.

At the same time, it cannot be said that all these images, except for Stalin again, are extremely invented from the head. Occasionally, liberals come across, who believe that songs performed by "bubble" are the pinnacle of contemporary art. It also happened to meet cynical cosmopolites, who claimed that "Putin for this people is the most, they do not deserve the best." And it is easy to agree with this thought if you get acquainted with the people only on the "Russian marches".

Meanwhile, the liberals are very different, and if Prilepin came across only lovers of punk young, then you can only regret how life has deprived him. As for the people, it should be said that all attempts to speak on his behalf for centuries turned over with embarrassment. For writers, and for politicians, and for the clergy. That is, people can be stabbed and turned into a herd, but what he really thinks is not easy to find out. Especially in totalitarian societies, where science of sociology goes in the thorns of the corner of the sales girl of the bourgeoisie. Because people consist of people, and they are the same pluralists as the liberals divorced from the soil. In general, the sin of generalization is one of the most grave, mortal sins.

The imaginary, writing world of Zakhara Prilepin is woven from paradoxes. It has a "liberal intelligentsia", unnecessary, talkative, weak, lagging back from history. And there is a mighty, conservative, going in their own way. Nevertheless, this people are doomed if the liberals want to "finish it off". There is an invented Vladimir Vladimirovich, who, only think, "quite a liberal politician and a marketer." I do not know, maybe Prilepin has in mind some other Vladimir Vladimirovich, Petukhov there or Pilipayo, unknown to us. The real Mikhail Ivanovich Putin destroyed the freedom of speech on the guestelekanals and in the central paper press, and the market, where billions spin, divided the “Lake” between the right boys from the cooperative, establishing an unprecedented patsan hospitalism with branches in the province. The liberal and the market of this Putin can be called only in a purely literary sense. By imitating, for example, Shchedrin.

By the way, it was about this market of him, Putin, that about a year ago, Evgeny Nikolaevich (Zakhar) Prilepin, a national intercessor, a Russian writer and publicist, when last fall, was interested in the fate and income of citizen Timchenko. He asked how the liberal of pure water, demonstrating the craving for free -thinking and personal courage. The real, and not by himself an oceling Prilepin is essentially a liberal. When he is engaged in his small business in a country, almost not adapted for this. When traveling around foreign countries and explains to the readers of the Zyuddeche Tsaitung, which our prose people should be translated and read. When he freely writes and prints articles in which liberalism nails. When it stands for political prisoners.

That is why I feel a considerable personal sympathy for this stranger to me. And sadness, when he, heated by discussion with phantom democrats, dreaming of turning the spreading Putin empire into a civilized state, expresses a desire to live in a "abnormal country", as if living in some other. Of course, you can’t forbid living beautifully, but I would like the writer to return to his unlucky Russia from the ghostly world. Then, maybe, I will be able to justify myself before the most cruel of the liberals. Fortunately, in life they are much less common than in Prilepin's texts.