Litpromance designer

Feel how it sounds: "Articles of recent years" - and even coupled with the "change of fate" ? This is not just rock - there is an Apocalypse at full force: " Last times, Mother Martha Ignatievna, the last, in all signs the latter ." And the book is designed, respectively, by fragments of P. Filonov’s picture “Man in the World” . On the cover, they do not look so frightening, since they are made in color; But when, having opened the book, you meet at the place where the author’s portrait is usually placed, a certain asymmetric physiognomy-close-up, black and white and all cut into squares, rhombuses and circles (may the founder of “analytical art”), then you can hardly overpower yourself, forcing it to believe that the same Filonov created it, and not some Salvador Dali. For Filonovskaya "Analytics" leads the viewer to cosmic all -power, and the tutus anonymous face in the aesthetics of a patchwork blanket looks like a global symbol of scatter and staggering.

However, this is not at all to blame the author of S. Chupinin or, say, the artist E. Polikashin, who made the cover. On the contrary: the design is accurate - it completely correlates with the general atmosphere (or rather, the trend) of the book. It contains articles and reviews of the last fifteen years - and the evolution of domestic literature during this time S. Chuprin is not at all inclined to evaluate as positive (and in this he is not alone). The texts are placed in chronological order, but combined in three sections - each of which is a "portrait" of a certain historical and literary period. Like the title of the whole book, the names of the sections are very eloquent: “The first -born of freedom” - “split mirror” - “zero years”. The first (grabbing more than half of the total volume) represents the work of the author from 1988 to 1993, the second includes the years 2000-2002, and the latter is already absolute freshly: 2002-2003. Although a gaping pass for whole seven years (out of fifteen) makes you think. The author himself does not motivate this compositional phenomenon, so it remains to conclude that the “pause” is left for pure contrast - so that the jump from the texts of the “perestroika” time to texts of the 21st century looks more striking.

S. Chuprinin characterizes the initial half of his book: "In the first section, large and wise viewing articles of 1988-199 are collected, and the reader, presumably, will feel that the spirit of hope that wers in them will feel that we will all see the sky in diamonds." Do not perceive the definition of “large and wise” as an act of self-love: this is just a designation of genre features of what came out of the pen at the dawn of foggy publicity. It was drawn to generalizations and philosophicality - so the texts poured the corresponding ones. When sweet-haired times have passed and, in Yeninsky, the young men sang other songs, the author explains, from the articles of the “big and wise” he moved to the articles “fractional and even clipov” : they arose "at the end of the millennium and the departure of the literature that was for me." It was then that the “last” times came - a sort of post -literary timelessness was woven: “And finally, the third, today is already a section. He, although the hopes have not yet been lost, was born, as you see, alas, despair. The literature has changed. It has left the focus of public attention. And it has ceased to be the meaning of mine - and only my life” . I don’t know how the author thinks the further genre dynamics of his texts, but probably something should soon appear in the spirit of the “ Apocalypse of our time ”.

The quotes given are not taken from articles itself, but from the author’s preface to the collection. As for the book itself, with its content, I was mostly familiar for quite some time - for the name S. Chupinin did not appear in criticism yesterday and for his work (the literature of not only modern, but also the second half of the 19th - early XX centuries) I have been moving, perhaps for twenty years. Yes, and the entire "plot canvas", which is extended in articles, is quite well known - and not only to me, but to any more or less diligent reader. After all, this is our native literary process of the last fifteen years; And to everyone who is interested in literature, who met perestroika in a solid mind and still retained sound memory, the main defendants in the common cause are known as peeling. Only perhaps some details were forgotten.

But you must admit: even from the "finished" texts you can make a book differently. And it was curious to see what logic the author would build, to which it would lead to, on what note to the reasoning would break, from which a cliff the inflamed gaze will rush into the foggy distance - into an alarming, so to speak, unknown. Therefore, the "change of fate" I, a sinful thing, began to read from the end (from the beginning I also started, but only then). It turned out something like fortune telling; And in the end, it fell into the dry rest - this is what:

“Time itself will put everything in its places, and I admit that the market intervention in the Russian literature field will acquire more civilized, that is, less destructive, forms, that magazines and the literary community will finally learn to speak the language of the streets, and the convergence of mass and high culture will give results that are really worthy of attention.

But it will not be tomorrow.

And we live today, in the zero years. And I admit, at times I fall into powerless despair. The literature, when I began to engage in it thirty years ago, was one of the main affairs in the country. Now she ...

There was all the blood, all the intransigence,
And she became, pusias, it became intelligence ...
(O. Mandelstam)

So you can’t do without stoicism. Therefore, we will try, as Goethe advised, "to understand the comprehensible and calmly accept the incomprehensible."

And we will live on, doing what is written to us. "

Well said; In the sense - beautiful. But even a reader who is quite sympathetic to these words (like your humble servant), perhaps, can ask what a question. Donky, of course, is an honorable thing; And if there is no all -consuming totalitarian state, then the “market intervention” will also come out as an enemy of culture (after all, the creature is not herbivore and by no means ephemeral - this is not windmills for you). Nevertheless, there is a significant difference: if thirty years ago a liberal critic not only could not write what he wanted, but even could not read many books, but now no one stops reading and writing everything that the soul wishes. And if the pregnancy test convinces that the excellent child from the "mass -lithium and high culture" is not yet expected, then why not turn to those eras when beautiful children were still born - from other marriages? In other words: seeking genuine art, why not lean, for example, on high literature? If the future causes fear, then do not look from longing into the past? Who, for example, can say that he has already read all the good books donated to us by Russian literature? And the world (even of those that are translated into Russian)? As aunt said from the Bulgakov’s “ Notes of the deceased ”, addressing to the main character - a newly -minted playwright: “Didn’t there any plays? (...) What good plays are there. And how many of them! You will not replay at twenty years. Why do you worry about composing?” In other words, I don't want to read ...

But, of course, such thoughts can take into the head only to a person “non -literary” - that is, not coating in a journal polemic and not accustomed to considering the struggle for “correct” (in a good way) literature a matter of his whole life. And the author of the "change of fate" is from these; Therefore, it is inclined to see in literature primarily a social phenomenon, a public institution, a battlefield. And he sees his task in representing literature not so much in its “vertex” achievements as in the form of a process - as a living stream, in which “good” and “bad” do not cease, of course, to be such, but as parts of a single whole, there are many common birthplace points, which, with a “piece” approach, would remain unnoticed.

At one time, S. Chuprinin wrote the book "Criticism is critics." I think that literature for him is primarily writers . No wonder there are not so many in the "change of fate" of the analysis of literary works; Actually, they are not here at all. It is understandable: not to books, if literature is in danger. The subject of reasoning is mainly the communal "life" of literature - which is perceived as an indicator of social trends. "Higher", maybe not more important than "eternal", but more entertaining - this impression leaves the majority of articles.

S. Chuprinin explains: "Criticism is an architect or, less pathetic, a designer of literary space, because its main purpose: to understand, master, arrange in the correct order and thereby turn into the system those myriads of works that the oceanic surf are non -resistant to anything naked readers." It is no wonder that the situation of such criticism is now especially dramatic - for, firstly, the reader of En Masse does not need any "systems"; And secondly - where to extract the criteria of the “correct order”, if the previous one was whistling with a whistle, but the new one has not yet arisen, and the society has changed, and the function of literature in this society has shifted where it has shifted? For lack of such criteria, the catalog becomes the ideal (or at least visibility); And, I think, it was by chance that S. Chuprinin recently acted as the author-compiler of the huge dictionary "New Russia: the World of Literature".

However, it always seemed to me that literature is books . A bad book can only be opposed to the good book, but you can only fight for "for" - there is no other alternative. And naturally I was interested in the question: in the conditions of the decline of literature, in zero (that is, with two zeros) years - what problems were interested in the author of the "change of fate"? In other words: what S. Chuprinin, judging by his book, was sick of his soul and thought at the very last time - well, at least in the last year? We take the mentioned "fresh" - the last section - and we find articles: 1) about the publication of the novel by A. Prokhanov "Mr. Hexogen" in the publishing house "Ad Marginem" and about rat fuss around the bits . Morality: Prokhanov’s promotion did not add anything useful to Russian literature (and we, a sinful thing, suspected that Prokhanov was Dante today). 2) on the state of affairs in literary criticism- which S. Chuprinin, using the definition of I. Dedkov, characterizes as “the idle of thought” - and asks: “Can we ask the words (...) only to tell Urbi et orbi about the award of a particular bonus (...)“ 3) about “Steno”-radical sentiments (both left-and-right) , which are manifested in social life and in some literary works. 4) On the abundance of all kinds of literary awards that are hidden by the leaders of the mass poult in order to finally stir up water and overestimate the values ​​(in general, see clause 2).

Still not to sharpen here! Cracelessly rotating in the circle of such problems, any Don Quixote will feel like a junker Schmidt. For it is written, it turns out, not about the literature , but in the best case about the pop ; And besides, the patterns of the culture of the “former”, familiar, sixtieth and purestone are transferred to the “pop” quasi-culture. Of course, the struggle here is completely useless. To kill popes, it must be stopped consuming . And for this we need such means that are not available to S. Chuprinin, nor to me, or any other well-wisher. Well, can the scriptures of literary critics (or sociologists of literature, or publicists) influence the consumption of surrogates? Already where, where, in our country, one cannot help but remember that no anti-alcohol campaigns will lead to the desired result.

As for the pseudo -literate party, it can only be "defeated" in yourself and in only one way - non -participation ; Otherwise, it is pointless to complain that times have changed and party rules are shy. And again, the same thought comes to mind: if you feel a shortage of resistance to the upcoming muddy shaft, is it worth it to look for support from real literature, instead of kneading a “turnover”? For you can fight only for - and for what S. Chuprinin is fighting during the "recent years", I honestly did not understand. But reading his book was interesting - I say without any irony.

And - for dessert - I can not resist a spoon of tar to the publishing house, according to the editorial and correctional part. In the book, a large number of typos irritably irritated. It was really so difficult to carefully view 25 printed sheets of text?