Translated material
Meaningless business
About the book of Nikolai Andreev "Life of Sakharov", M.: New Chronograph, 2014
(Full version of the review printed in the newspaper in abbreviated form)
The book was a large volume of 950 pages. The core of the book - 900 pages - are three parts dedicated to the “object”, the Moscow dissident period (“Bonner”) and life in the link (“Gorky”). There is also a prologue and 40 pages dedicated to the last three years of life Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov. I read a total of about 750 pages, lowering the beginning and the end.
Andreev (subsequently - the author) took advantage of the well -known journalistic technique: several texts of other authors are versed in separate episodes, then what is selected for the narrative, and the resulting chain of episodes is revived by adding invented scenes. The disassembly for episodes were subjected to "Memories" and "Diaries" A.D. Sakharov, some texts of Elena Georgievna Bonner, individual chapters of the book of memoirs about Sakharov "He lived between us." It seems that materials from the Internet and the work of Gennady Gorelik on the history of Soviet physics were used. The author’s work was done by a large one, yes, in my opinion, everything is without a sense.
About substitution
Take at random, with p. 194 and further than Sakharov at the facility. It works a lot (sometimes sitting until midnight). While Klava’s wife with little daughters is in Moscow, together with a friend walks in the evenings to two girls, one of whom is indulging in love joys with a comrade, and the second (Alla) persistently beats the wedge to Andrei. Constantly listens to the outpourings of the loving I.B. Zeldovich (“cheerful sperm Yashka” according to the dashing definition of Landau, p. 308): he does not miss a single skirt on the object, and, in the end, kills attractive Alla. He transports his family from Moscow, but continues to go to work in a battered suit, groomed, in a dirty shirt and a dilapidated coat. He does not know what to talk about with his wife Klava (and is more and more silent around). Shows colleagues his genius. Upon coercion, Zeldovich drinks a bottle of cognac with him, which plunges Klava into terrible suspicions that he is an alcoholic. The next morning, with a broken head, beats Klava, trying to stop her inexorable lamentations. He is tormented by his deed, but Klava forgives him (“hits it means loves”). After 20 pages, it again beats Klava (for an attack of jealousy to the alla) and is again terribly tormented. Soon it beats Klava for the third time. The out of place answers the questions of a special commission that verifies the ideological fuel of scientists (but it gets away with him). According to the clever intrigue, Zeldovich defends the Jew altshuler, who also slipped on the issues of the commission. It is not embarrassed when the author calls the same person either Bogolyubov or Bogomolov, and the other - either Pomeranchuk, then Palamarchuk. Forever on the pages of the book or Tamm teaches the company to play a screw, or Khariton promotes the “Latin-American” Canal, or Bogolyubov teaches to drink cognac in a big-lumpy, etc. etc. All this series of affairs and events (not all of which took place in reality) turns into an inexpressible vulgarity, as soon as they strive to give him the status of “Life of Sakharov”.
Indeed, a person’s life consists of eating, natural departments, work, crossings, contacts, exchange of views, entertainment, calling, intimate relationships - but the ingenuous protocoling of all this stream of life mutet is not a story about a person’s life. And the one who tries to pass on one by another is engaged in the substitution of concepts.
About vulgarity
There are numbers ...
Zeldovich (describes Sakharov his impressions of the test of the atomic bomb, p. 164): “ The explosion is fascinating. I knew that happiness is when you merge with a woman in ecstasy. This is rolling ... The explosion is a stronger impression ... I looked at the black mushroom and thought: here is the lesson for a real man! Stand on the ground, which is swaying and know: you made it shaking ... ”
Sakharov (in painful thoughts about his friend, p. 405): "... he has his own cockroaches ."
Bonner (p. 609): “ In“ Birch ”and the highest quality products, and a decent, western junk. The Soviet workers do not grow from there . ”
She (reassuring Sakharov on the phone, p. 636): " Well, waking, waking ." It was not enough for Sakharov to respond: “Hore!” ...
She (extremely pleased with the dinner on an airplane, who delivers Sakharov to the link from Moscow to Gorky, p. 710): “ Super! Like in Aragvi. More often you were sent to exile ... "
She (at the beginning of the third Gorky hunger strike, 1985, p. 825): “... affectionately slapped him on the back of the head. You are my miserable human rights activist . ”
On old patterns
Bonnar lets Sakharov “affectionate slaps” in a total of 6 times (maybe more). So the rumors that bloated to the KGB that Bonnar is shaken by Sakharov came in handy for the author.
The entire Bonnare section is written as an accusation against her. The power predator closed all the sensory channels of Rochli Academician, used its money to arrange her children in the West, ruined the life of Sakharov’s children, and even put it in her human rights activity. Almost any episode in this part of the book is told in such a way as to cause hostility to Bonner and its children and to sow doubt about Sakharov's adequacy.
The author again plunges into a muddy household flow: who was sleeping with whom, and who gets divorced with whom, who demands “apostate” and who makes an abortion, who wants to pull off the cottage, and who hates whom, who charms whom, and who attempted suicide, who envies whom - and so on, and the like. Sakharov all the time relieves family troubles arising from restless relatives of Bonner. Problems and their own children are thrown. In a word, this is not a life for a normal person.
A well -known episode understands when Sakharov, Galich and Maximov turned to Pinochet call to protect the famous poet Pablo Nerud from the persecution. Everything was served in the 1973 kaugabene interpretation: the Isolent two -Terriers support the bloody Chilean dictator (p. 589). For greater persuasiveness, the author even came up with a visiting quote from their letter - but there is no such quote in the letter! Why mislead readers? By the way, the whole story with the letter was examined in detail by Sakharov in his “Memoirs”, which shows that the “raised anger” of the Soviet press was only an element of the propaganda campaign against Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn.
Another Caugabene Lipa (pp. 559-561): Sakharov is busy in front of the rector of Moscow State University about the restoration of Tatyana Yankelevich (daughter Bonner) to the journalism faculty-she was expelled according to a far-fetched preposition. The rector of Moscow State University Ivan Georgievich Petrovsky is an outstanding mathematician and organizer of science. During the next visit to Petrovsky, Sakharov spread like Rambo: he screamed on those present, knocked on the table, threatened Petrovsky. As a result, the weak heart of Ivan Georgievich could not stand it - he was gone. Now that Sakharov’s “memories” are available to everyone, and anyone can get acquainted with his presentation of events, it is simply indecent to slip the lying gebesh goods to the reader.
However, there is no need to talk about decency. Much of this section could enter the category of pearls in terms of the author’s style. For example (p. 625): “ Andrei Dmitrievich was so out of the Motinka 1 , which was easier to survive the tragedy of on a keorar with a key 2 . At her birth, a child died - asphyxia . ” Just shamelessly attribute to Sakharov moderate experiences about the death of his own grandson.
Another remarkable episode is set out by the author too extensive, we will give it in abbreviation (p. 670-671). From time to time, his son appears to Sakharov: to see, ask for help in the structure of his affairs, discuss the possibility of leaving abroad, etc. The guy is over 20 years old, he had already walked in the first courses of several faculties and flew out of the house, tried different works. It cannot be said that the father does not take part in his son - each time the author makes Sakharov with the monotion of the answering machine to pronounce the standard monologue: “ We want goodness ... We think a lot about your future ... We want to save you ... You must work hard to earn our trust .” But this time he and Elena Georgievna had to be surprised - his son found and brought to show the old photos of Sakharov's ancestors. The examination of the photos ended with a drama - Bonnar took them and hid them: they say, she plans to make a genealogy of Sakharov for a long time, and Dima will lose photos. Neither the prayer of his son, nor the appeal for supporting the at first confused father, nor a sedentary strike arranged near the front door - nothing helped, and at the second hour of the night, soulless adults pushed the poor fellow out of the apartment.
Question: Why don't you go to the nearest photo studio the next day and re -reset photos? All the same, not the "gulag archipelago." No, it is more important for the author against elementary logic to light up their heroes, to portray them with sadists.
Such is the author’s style - terrible and merciless to oneself.
About the genre of the book
Experts are not difficult to determine the genre of the book - a fictional biography: the documentary basis plus “Old Film”. But “revival” here is such a force that no document can stand.
The fact is that most of the characters in the book are real people withdrawn under their natural surnames: from Kurchatov and Khariton to fleeting people. There are about a hundred such heroes in the book. On the contrary, I came across very little invented characters-a generalized friend of youth, a generalized close employee for the object, Alla-School. (Perhaps I missed someone, but the order of the values is just that.) In other words, the author makes real people act, puts them in specific situations and puts their invented speeches into their mouths. It would seem that it is necessary to act carefully. It turns out - optional.
For example: Igor Evgenievich Tamm, answering Sakharov’s question about Landau, transparently hints to his young friend (p. 281): “ You know my attitude to anti -Semitism. But the other extreme manifests me. Landau does not take Russians to him ... "
How to explain to the author that Tamm and Landau were not engaged in calculating the percentage of Jewish blood from their employees? What in general, not all people are interested in this percentage. Apparently, this is impossible to explain.
About Sakharov (p. 459): “ She stayed overnight. He did not succeed in bed "...
What, in kind? The author is the owner-barine, maybe for his hero and to be in bed. In this case, with a virtual heroine (Alla), but also not necessary. On page 515, after the first proximity to the desired and beloved woman, right in bed, Sakharov admits to her that now, now “ he thinks about the most beloved ... - About whom ? Not about someone, but about what : about relict radiation ! .. ”Then the author simply makes fun of his hero.
Efrem Yankelevich, who helped A.D. To print the Nobel lecture, its last option was satisfied and (v. 636) restrainedly praised Sakharov: " After all, you can, when you are trying ." This is said strongly. Andrei Dmitrievich really had a high opinion of the Ephraim, but still Ephraim himself was immeasurably a higher opinion about A.D.
The human rights activist Tatyana Velikanova throws in his hearts (p. 677): “ Andrey Dmitrievich, you have porridge in your head. Read Trosnikova 3 , you will immediately come clarified . ” Those who know what kind of pet Tatyana Mikhailovna treated to Sakharov will turn off in disgust. And for the author, this is just a “revival”.
We will not multiply examples. The ease of inventing such stories by the author is unusual. But in reality, such a “revival” only exposes the author’s perverted attitude to Sakharov and his environment.
About borrowings
The author enjoys another extraordinary technique quite widely - let's call it a borrowing. If he liked some kind of excerpt in someone else's book, the author boldly inserts this passage into the fabric of his own narrative. Without quotes. Sometimes a few words in the passage will change, but it does not strain much. Here are a few examples.
- The discussion of Sakharov with the General of State Security Pavlov: two fragments on pages 383, 384 = pp. 354-355, vol. 1, “Memories” by A.D. Sakharov, Moscow, Time, 2006. The second fragment liked the author so much that he used it twice, instructing Sakharov to blur it in a dispute with a friend on page 544. Indeed, a good fragment, I will give him here (in quotation marks): “ We know too little about the laws of history, the future is unpredictable, and we are not gods. We, each of us, in each business - both in the "small" and in "Bolshoi" should proceed from specific moral criteria, and not abstract arithmetic of history. Moral criteria categorically dictate to us - do not kill! ". Before the “abstract arithmetic of history” it would be worth putting “from”, but since Sakharov does not, then the author takes as it is.
- Sakharov’s conversation with P.L. Kapitsa in an attempt to receive the signature of the letter to the country's leadership: p. 468 = p. 653, vol. 1. In this fragment there is one characteristic phrase: " Speaking with him [with the temple] was a pure pleasure ." This lovely old turnover is the quintessence of the Sakharov style. It is remembered once and for all. It is clear that it was difficult for the author to resist the borrowing of this phrase.
- Huge borrowings from the Sakharov story about how they and Elena Georgievna and her son Alyosha sat in the village of Sosnovka (Dubrovlag), hoping for a date with the "plane" Eduard Kuznetsov: pp. 655-657 = p. 371-378, T.2. The final paragraphs of this passage-in my opinion, is one of the best that is written by A.D. Sakharov. Unfortunately, the author casually reacted to the original text, strongly confused and even perverted it. I want to restore everything.
So, after a ten -day residence in a local hostel, our heroes met their neighbor - the camp head of the middle level Vanya (as Sakharov designated him). Vanya turned out to be a normal person, without animal inclinations and sadism. Once, Sakharov and Bonnar watched the TV in the red corner, and stumbled upon David Samoilov, who read his poems. Further italics is given to the Sakharov text, completely migrated to our author: “... Vanya was sitting nearby - he had a day free from duty. From our remarks, he realized that we personally know the poet reading his poems on TV. It was the deepest shock for him. The world where poems write and read, and the world where they humiliate each other, drink vodka, swear, bend their backs in the afternoon and are forgotten by a heavy sleep at night, the world of empty store shelves, a movie with torn ribbons - these two worlds were infinitely far from each other - and suddenly they were close in our person . ”
Half -fat font is highlighted above what the author did not take in his book. The fact is that he found a different application of this text. The author decided that it would be better if the indicated endlessly remote worlds come closer in the minds of Sakharov, and not in Vani's mind. Roughly speaking, Sakharov finally “struck”. Of course, the author knows better how to dispose of someone else's text ...
In the "Memoirs" A.D. Sakharov immediately after this is an excerpt, which is worthwhile to reproduce it-in my opinion, this is a wonderful text. In his book, the author partially used this piece, but we will not follow his efforts, but simply read the passage completely. Italics is the Sakharov text: “ Maybe it seems to someone naive and superficial, but when I think about the expression of Vanya’s face that day and when I recall some other people with whom my life has encountered me, it begins to seem to me that this unhappy, dumped and drunk people, who are now not even the people in the literal sense of the word, still not quite disappeared. It is not the greatness of the historical path of the nation, not the Orthodox religious revival, not the involvement in revolutionary internationalism - all this is not that all these are illusions when they speak of the people. But a simple human feeling, empathy of someone else's life, a thirst for something higher, something for the soul. There are still these sparks, they did not die completely. Will there be something with them? As in a national plan - I don’t know, and is it important that? .. But in a personal, universal plan, I am sure that the sparks will burn while people exist . ”
Well, now everything is right ...
I found offhand in a book with a dozen such borrowings - sometimes only a few phrases, sometimes quite lengthy. Probably, Dissernet will find more. I think that the author does not have the right to use other people's texts without links, passing them for his own work. Maybe after the accession of Crimea is already allowed. But before for such things they beat with candelabra ...
Is everything so bad in the book?
There are more or less normal pieces in the book, but questions arise on them. Let's talk for an example of two large pieces of text.
1) In the first part of the book, a lot of attention was paid to the gradual awareness of Sakharov that tests of thermonuclear weapons in the atmosphere are a crime against humanity. Nuclear decay products are carried around the world, with food and water fall into the body of people, and due to non -conical biological effects, they cause irreparable harm to health. Sakharov appreciated that in the long run, each megaton explosion takes about 10,000 lives. It is fury, all over the world - but so many people are becoming victims. Советский Союз в тот момент уже взорвал около 50 мегатонн, американцы – еще больше. Миллион ни в чем неповинных людей обречены стать невидимыми жертвами гонки вооружений. Сахаров остро переживает мучительный конфликт: с одной стороны надо совершенствовать «изделия», а с другой – каждое новое испытание уносит тысячи жизней. Он стремится минимизировать число взрывов, в частности — старается остановить испытание, которое считает бессмысленным. Предотвратить испытание не удается, и он очень эмоционально это переживает. С этой открытой душевной раной автор отправляет Сахарова в раздел «Боннэр», к диссидентам.
Только автор не сообщает читателю, что в 1963 году был заключен Московский договор о запрете испытаний ядерного оружия в атмосфере, в космосе и под водой. Испытания спрятали под землю, и это решило проблему загрязнения среды. Договор был подписан в Москве, потому что его инициатором выступил Советский Союз. А самыми первыми инициаторами были Сахаров и его сотрудник Виктор Борисович Адамский. Именно Адамский сформулировал основной принцип и стал обсуждать его с Сахаровым, а тот сумел заинтересовать здравой идеей министра Славского, который, в свою очередь, сумел так подать идею Хрущеву, что тот отнесся к ней благосклонно. Все завершилось заключением Московского договора, к которому со временем присоединились десятки государств.
Сахаров всегда гордился своей причастностью к заключению Московского договора, сохранившего жизнь миллионам людей, и во всех автобиографиях отмечал это как один из самых важных своих результатов. Если писалась именно «Жизнь Сахарова», то не худо было бы отразить в книге этот факт.
2) Представляется, что почти вся часть, посвященная жизни в Горьком, написана приемлемо. Здесь дано более или менее адекватное изложение истории трех голодовок Сахарова 5 . В этой части книги имеется много тяжелых сцен: мучительное насильственное кормление, беспросветная тоска одинокого человека, бессильное отчаяние перед всемогущей государственной машиной, боязнь и переживания за судьбу другого. Иной жизни у Сахарова и Боннэр тогда не было.
Есть в этой части книги одна трогательная сцена. Идет третья голодовка (продолжавшаяся полгода!), Сахарова держат в больнице, а изолированная от всего мира и доведенная до отчаяния Боннэр идет на Пасху в церковь и ставит свечку. Елена Георгиевна была убежденной атеисткой, поэтому история эта маловероятна, но написана сцена убедительно. Никак не могу обнаружить первоисточник этой сцены – откуда она взята? Знатоки утверждают, что в опубликованных материалах такой истории нет. Неужто автор «из головы» ее выдумал? По всему, что он наворотил до того, в это трудно поверить.
Насильственным медицинским «обслуживанием» Сахарова во время его голодовок руководил главврач горьковской больницы им. Семашко – Обухов Олег Александрович , 1923 г.р. Настоящий советский врач, депутат и гуманист разъяснял Сахарову, что убить его не убьют, но инвалидом сделают, так что брюки он сам себе застегнуть не сможет. Сахаров в воспоминаниях отметил жесткость Обухова. Почему наш автор прикрыл его реальное имя и назвал Лобовым – одна из загадок этой книги.
Resume
В книге полно искажений, пятнающих репутацию конкретных людей. Имеется в книге некоторое количество более или менее приемлемых кусков, но никаких откровений эти куски не содержат. А тогда зачем все это? К чему этот невразумительный пересказ простой и ясной прозы Сахарова?
Реальный источник, по которому только и можно составить себе представление о жизни Сахарова — его собственные воспоминания. Текст этот — поистине кристальной ясности. Только КГБ раза четыре похищал у Сахарова «Воспоминания» — и всякий раз Андрей Дмитриевич восстанавливал все заново. Это, конечно, не 12 вариантов начала «Анны Карениной», но близко к тому. Выверенный рассказ о собственной жизни, продуманный и написанный Сахаровым – вот что стоит читать, если хочешь понять его образ мыслей и судьбу. Заодно получишь надежную прививку против биографов-шарлатанов.
А обсуждавшаяся «беллетризованная биография» — неприятная книга. Хотя, конечно, где-нибудь на ОРТ/НТВ по этой книге вполне могут снять телесериал. Такая фактура: бомба, Берия, объект, Серафим Саровский, заключенные, эротические сцены у бомбы, секретные советские гении, Яшка-сперматозоид!.. Сняли же что-то подобное про Ландау, несмотря на протесты научной общественности.
Бессмысленное дело всегда пробьет себе дорогу 6 – эта формула советских времен все еще довлеет над нами.
Леонид Литинский,
член Общественной комиссии по сохранению наследия академика Сахарова
1 Попавший в реанимацию годовалый сын Тани и Ефрема Янкелевичей.
2 Средняя дочь Андрея Дмитриевича.
3 Современный религиозный философ. В кавычках сохранена орфография оригинала.
4 В дальнейшем все сопоставления даются по единой форме: номер страницы настоящей книги соединяется знаком равенства с номером страницы другого издания, где находится идентичный или неотличимо близкий фрагмент.
5 В меньшей степени эта в целом положительная оценка относится к описанию первой голодовки, 1981 года, за Лизу Алексееву. Сахаров и Боннэр держали голодовку 17 дней. При описании этой голодовки еще можно напороться и на передергивание в мотивировках, и на хамские характеристики.