Adelaide Metelkin. Thirty -second approach

Self -criticism

" Anonymous December 20, 2000 - 16:57 : Adelaide Metelkina, a girl with a stinging style of presentation of materials. Publication of novels under the name Holm Van Zaychik is a literary provocation of the editor -in -chief of the" Book Review "A. Gavrilov. This is the so -called" Literary Project ", the second in Russia after Akunin, Gavrilov does not give rest the lavra's rest. The “Exlibes”, who at one time, promoted the Japanese writer in Russia.

Dear anonymous, I did not understand which Japanese writer spun “Exlibis” at one time and why are you so sure that Alexander Gavrilov (r. 1970) personally is familiar with the Dutch diplomat Robert Van Gulik (1910-1967). But as for Van of the Bunny, I have long been in the know . The novel "The case of the Greedy Barbara" was composed by Petersburgers Vyacheslav Rybakov and Igor Alimov . I think that the editor “Ko”, the “barbar” would be like a text, and not on a crack-pax fax.

Razbration

While I was shaking with anger , I dug in the small -caliber soul of the bestseller, Joan van Raboling, Lisa Novikova ("Kommersant -Daily") read completely different books and did not harm the droplet - unless sometimes she grinned maliciously. A cute girl with a clean, unchiff -looking look.

And more in the region’s subordinate, nothing happened, perhaps. In any case, nothing radically important.

Sergei Gandlevsky placed in the “results” of a spectacular essay on Tristram Shendi with the afterword of Shklovsky . "The content of this prose, if the content of information is understood by the content of information, is approaching the zero mark: even poems can afford this. Stern mocks the very idea of ​​the narrative as an appropriate message." If we take into account that the volume of the Inapress publishing house in the summer is purchased almost everywhere, not only Stern mocks this idea.

The compiler of the prosaic anthology "Time to give birth to stones" Vik. Georofev answered the questions of Olga and Alexander Nikolaev ("Time MN"). Judging by the abundance of those involved and participle turnover, he answered, not verbally, but in writing. "I would say that young writers in Montenevsky decided to describe their own internal structure, and not for the sake of attracting new ideologies, but in order to know their basic values ​​and landmarks. It is no coincidence that their keyword is" positioning ", that is, to correctly arrange themselves, self -determine." And I would say that the word "position" has nothing to do with the internal structure of the subject. Positioning means choosing a larva in that reptile comedy del arte, which is a spocation of the century is called a liter process, and, having chosen, never shoot it, even if ( especially if) the guise asks for brick; To someone, and this technology is well known to Viktor Vladimirovich.

The penultimate in the second millennium was the number of the Literary Newspaper. Although it is positioned as a double, there is practically nothing to relax to the eye there, the LG website will be updated - make sure. It is painfully a shame to read the sloppy verses of Konstantin Vanshenkin about terror, TV, Cell and Gumilyov; Feminded story "Average Russian" (editorial recommendation) Stanislav Radkevich about Thailand; The Kumov review of Yuri Polyakov is shamelessly in the book of Andrei Dementiev. Or here - Dmitry Khrapovitsky about the collection "Star of Bethlehem: the Light of Orthodoxy in Russian Poetry" (Publishing House "Sunday"; compiled by Igor Shklyarevsky): "Such books are published with great love, it is absent -minded ... The names of the authors on the shmetstitula - Pasternak, Lermontov, Khodasevich, Tsvetaevich, Maikov, Nabokova, Grigoryeva, Grigoryev Rubtsova, George Ivanov, Blok, Yesenin, Tyutchev, Blageny, Sluchevsky, Lisnyanskaya, Chukhontsev, Baratynsky, Kushner, Mandelstam, Voloshin, Gumilyov, Akhmatova, Pushkin - do not share the centuries and pedestals ... The paper is offset, dense and white, but not glossy. The names of outstanding poets are under poems - the compiler gave tribute to the tradition of the last century ... " Then the Khrapovitsky was clearly hesitated: it seems to be everything that he could, and the paid string is not exhausted. How to be? Yeah, Eureka: "The book opens with the poem by Boris Pasternak" Christmas Star. "We will give four lines (four lines are given. - AD.M. ) ... Strength and accuracy. The author in that very time is the forerunner of Christmas. So everything happened." UV-F, now you can proceed to the main thing: "For such a book, it took the participation of a mentally subtle philanthropist, whose name is indicated on the first pages: Vladimir Eduardovich Dvoskin. I do not think that the book will bring commercial profit. A good thing to eternity is closer." A good deed - to eternity, and its own denim shirt is to the body. Horror with a gun.

From complete shame, “literature” is saved by two and a half material. Half is the first part of Pavel Basinsky’s review of Boris Ekimov (M.: Vagrius), which states about the pictures of nature and that “Critical articles about prose ... Wekimov ... Read, as a rule, boring, uninteresting.” But starting from the words "Ekimov prints his" Pinochece "about a year before the victory in Putin’s election," it becomes really boring - to the wake ... sorry, to yawn.

Valery Shubinsky’s commentary on the results of the prize Andrei Bely and the article by Lev Pirogov about the bouquenic “Ishmael capture” I will not retell - be sure to download them to the screen, you will barely be able to. I only note that for the first time before us is a model of Pirogovsky products, which demonstrates an unshakable acquaintance of the author with the analyzed text. Previously, I thought that Pirogov was not a reader, a writer Pirogov. I was mistaken, however.

Yes, also regarding Pirogov. In the last two weeks, what kind of Runet site you will not be chopped on - everywhere with smoked voices they will discuss the tasks of modern criticism. They are verbose so, boring . Where, therefore, criticism of the very place: in front of the criticized work, behind or side. And I think - it is not a matter of position, but about the gender. Why go far: yesterday Oleg Dark wrote in the RG about Michael Cunningham’s novel “House on the edge of the world,” he wrote unsuccessfully, confused and inconsistently, but probably he wanted the best. And nearby - Irina Caspe's review of the same book, thin, energetic, witty. And today in the Gazeta.ru - the review of Olga Grinkrugs to the same book, even thinner and witty - although where it would seem to be even. Compare and think; Facts are a stubborn thing.

Or take Natalia Gameanov , who views the content of thick magazines in Izvestia. An ungrateful genre, you can’t imagine worse, Natalia is graceful like a doe. “Anatoly Korolev’s novel“ The Snake in the Mirror, which is hidden at the bottom of the baskets with the hotels, which is the red cap running through the forest along the wolf path, ”written“ in longing for unattainable perfection. ”Perfection should arise from the clash of ancient and Christian mythology. The modest gift of the writer-player-intellectual.” Annotation is almost shorter than the name of the novel - but all that was required, and about the "snake ...", and the queen said in it.

Or take the same Lisa Novikova . No, G-yes, your will, and a modern critic should be young lady, and that’s it. Preferably - queen.