Victor Perelman. Author's environment

Author's environment
Victor Perelman

Publication date: November 22, 2002

On Tuesday the 12th, fate brought me to a meeting of the literary club " Avtornik ", dedicated to the current prose writer Andrei Gelasimov .

Actually, I got to the meeting by accident, having mixed up something or misunderstood something in the announcements. In addition, I was very late, though not because of my own lack of organization, but due to the fault of one young, careless person.

Nevertheless.

When I entered the hall, the author - Andrei Gelasimov - was finishing reading the story. In addition to the author and the head of the "Authornik" project - the famous literary figure and free verse librist Dmitry Kuzmin - about 15 people were present.

Andrei Gelasimov made a good impression - he looked handsome, read smartly, and behaved energetically.

The story gave the opposite impression. A kind of melodramatic version of socialist realism was demonstrated. Specially designed for squeezing out tears (which was noted by those present - the tears were squeezed out, that is what we mean).

But the most interesting impression was made by the discussion that followed the reading.

Here you need to pay attention to the fact that.

1.

The "Authornik" club positions itself as one of the most elite (if not the most elite) literary education and is a presentation platform (it is declared as a presentation platform) for members of the "Babylon" Union of Young Writers and for everything relevant that is produced in modern Russian literature.

Needless to say, the “Union of Young Writers “Babylon” (already 10 (ten) years old, although this is not the point, of course) was created and conceived as a community of the most literary writers and the most poetic poets. Of course, to a large extent this managed.

2.

Prose writer Andrei Gelasimov became known to the general public relatively recently, and his literary career is developing very, very successfully. It has good press, is published by prestigious publishers, is published in magazines , is nominated for awards, and appears to be read.

In addition, it turned out that Andrei Gelasimov is seriously engaged in scientific work. He is writing (as I understand) a doctorate, teaches and is a specialist in modern English literature . The subject of scientific interest of Andrei Gelasimov is the highest achievements of the mentioned literature - winners of the Pulitzer and Booker Prizes.

That is, from all this it follows that, apparently, the meeting brought together the very best humanitarian elite of the capital (except, of course, me, the modest V. Perelman , who ended up there by accident and had no pretensions at all, either in lifestyle or according to the level of education for the title of intellectual-humanist).

So.

The atmosphere, of course, was very intelligent. Everyone was polite and spoke in a very friendly tone.

The discussion of A. Gelasimov's works vividly reminded me of the seminars at the Literary Institute . Obviously, so did the hero of the evening, since from the very first questions he became somehow defensive. And explain that he is not a fool and understands something about something (see point 2). Those present reassured the author, assuring him that they had all their love for him, but this did not help much. As a result, to prove his good IQ, the author was forced to speak a fairly significant part of the words from his answers and statements in a foreign language. Apparently with very correct English (I think London) pronunciation. Better than MTV VJs.

In this friendly intellectual atmosphere, under constant reservations about 2 (two) higher educations, those present began to find out how a banality differs from an archetype and whether the proposed texts are a banality; why the read stories are so suspiciously reminiscent of the works of Belov or Tokareva ; why the author turned to depicting characters clearly from a different social group than himself, and in general, what was the author’s motivation.

Answering the questions posed, the author assured those present of his loyalty (or even sympathy) to social groups distant from him. He also explained that banality differs from an archetype, in his opinion, in the presence of a message (or rather, banality differs precisely in the absence of a message), but in general, in order to distinguish a banal text from an archetypal one, two things are needed: the talent of the writer and the talent of the reader, because the reader must also be talented, and of course, all this (the talent of the reader and writer) lies in the area of ​​subjective assessments. After this, in fact, the discussion could be curtailed, because enough has been said.

Indeed. If the author's talent is the subject of the reader's subjective assessments, then there is no point in discussing the issue of the quality of the text - everyone decides for themselves.

Moreover, if the reader’s talent is also a subjective category, it means that any criticism (as well as praise) may be followed by the remark that the recipient of creative efforts is not gifted enough, and therefore there is no point in taking his opinion into account.

Thus, any discussion becomes meaningless.

“Your text is banal and untalented,” says a critical reader.

“You yourself are not able to understand anything,” the critical author retorts.

After which the disputants agree with the subjectivity of their own assessments, admit that everything may be quite the opposite, and peacefully disperse.

However, the discussion was not over. To the words about the relativity of all things, Andrei Gelasimov added that he is not familiar with the work of the domestic authors accused of him, and he has good reasons for this. Namely, he reads only in English and only relevant modern literature (English). This fact turned out to be extremely important, since, having announced it, the author honestly admitted that, having carefully examined current trends in English-language literature using the example of the work of the winners of the two (mentioned above) prestigious awards, he turned to the type of writing that he read at the evening . For this, in his opinion, is the current literary trend, and not at all the rehashes of Borges and Cortazar , which Russian writers, mired in darkness and ignorance, indulge in. Further, Andrei Gelasimov stated even more directly that the motivation for writing just such texts is his (understandable to everyone) desire to be fashionable and keep up with life. That is, obviously, the author tried to act as a conductor of current world trends to our outskirts of civilization, although, by his own admission, the prose he just read is no longer close to him (why did he read it?), and now he is busy with a novel about the life of the intellectual stratum, where All heroes have two VOs and appropriate vocabulary.

That is, of course, the story, part of which I was able to hear, being a hybrid between socialist realism and a soap opera, performed its function well. He squeezed out a tear brilliantly. Although everyone who needs it has known the recipe for a long time.

An unfortunate creature is taken for whom there is no one to stand up for (in this case - a little girl), evil callous people are taken - practically scoundrels who do not teach the girl, beat her and even want to take her to an orphanage, and a compassionate simple Russian is taken (in this case, but in general - better, a black woman, who alone fights the cruelty of this cold world, thoroughly saturated with hypocrisy, selfishness and lies.

How can you not cry here? Why are we monsters? I feel sorry for the girl, disgusted by the scoundrels, and the behavior of the elderly woman, who never graduated from college, is entirely approved. Come on!

This is fashionable actualism.

Perhaps, however, due to the poverty of my mind, I did not catch any linguistic, lexical, structural or phraseological subtleties. However, the rest of those present, apparently, did not catch them either.

Moreover, those present (including the author) also did not catch the fact that the author (Andrey Gelasimov) answered the question about motivation perfectly and honestly (he wrote because he wanted to be fashionable). Not catching this, the meeting under the leadership of Dmitry Kuzmin began with redoubled energy to torture the author for motivation, deep motivation, plot motivation (and not stylistic motivation, with which everything was clear), and at the same time the addressing of the texts.

In particular, Dmitry Kuzmin explained to those present that, as he understands, Andrei Gelasimov is not Belov at all, who writes as best he can and that’s it, Andrei Gelasimov is a polystylistic writer, but I would like to know why he turned to this particular type of writing , as well as for whom the texts read are intended.

Andrei Gelasimov, driven into a corner and almost switching from this to London English, completely forgot that he wrote the texts, trying to be a fashionable writer, and cut the resulting Gordian knot with iron arguments: “Because!” and "I want Booker ."

In approximately the same way, he solved the problem of the target audience with the involvement, however, of editors (let them decide).

Satisfied with the answers received, those present smoothly, through Hollywood films and art cinema, moved on to discussing the elite and the mass in literature.

Andrei Gelasimov suggested that the presence of high-quality fiction (for example, the works of Akunin ) is a positive factor, since it helps to raise the general cultural level and, as a consequence, raise the level of non-commercial literature.

However, Dmitry Kuzmin opposed this, saying that he absolutely did not understand why this good level of mass culture should influence the quality of the author’s culture.

For, in his deep conviction, mass culture and elite culture are incompatible and extremely different things, since the former is engaged in copying (reproducing) ready-made creative technologies in order to evoke the expected (predicted) emotional response among the masses, while the elite authorial (innovative) ) culture, on the contrary, is exclusively occupied with the search for new ways of self-expression of the individual.

In this regard, of course, I would like to ask Mr. Kuzmin what new ways of self-expression have been discovered, for example, by the “Babylon” society of writers he heads, in addition to those previously known to the world, but God bless him.

I am more interested in infernal questions. Because I think that only the presence of some invisible little demon who whispered in the ear of the well-respected writer, cultural activist, culturologist, translator, publisher, critic and literary critic, etc. Dmitry Kuzmin, these words he said, can explain the fact that he said them . And with such confidence.

To assume that a person like D. Kuzmin is unaware of the research of postmodernists , who sought to erase the boundaries between the elite and the masses, and moreover, testified that such a boundary simply does not exist. Or that D. Kuzmin is not aware that modern contemporary (serious, great, innovative) art is just engaged in the use of creative technologies that preceded it, quoting, sometimes parodying, and sometimes simply direct borrowing from mass art, folklore and other cultural layers. At least, I dabbled in this quite recently.

Or that D. Kuzmin does not know that the only criterion for the mass character of art is exclusively its mass character, that is, the number of consumers, and not the technology of creation or the motivation of the creator. This can be clearly seen from the examples of the recent history with the once marginal writer, and now popular fiction writer Sorokin , as well as the long-standing history with the fashionable vaudeville performer, and later a good poet and bard, Galich . And that only God knows exactly what motives guide the authors when creating works (the authors themselves, as it turned out just above, are not always in the know and change their opinions).

Here. I absolutely cannot assume all this. We have to blame it on the little demon.

Another thing is that D. Kuzmin may well misunderstand the importance of a high general (or individual) cultural level for the development of culture (literature). Big things, as we know, can be seen from a distance. What is the point for Mr. Kuzmin, who grew up in intelligent conditions, to understand the importance of a high start, which - the importance - lies in the fact that the higher the starting point from which a creative worker starts, the less effort he needs to expend to achieve new heights, or the higher the heights he will achieve.

Now, if D. Kuzmina’s grandmother was a midwife in the Michurinsky district of the Tambov region, and my, V. Perlman’s, grandmother would be a famous translator, and I, V. Perelman, would be a respected literary figure and would conduct intellectual debates among colleagues with an authoritative voice , who have entirely double higher educations, and he, D. Kuzmin, would sit modestly in a corner with his grandmother, a midwife, and blink with incomprehensible eyes - then, probably, the respected Mr. Kuzmin would understand this problem (high level and high strat means) better.

And this, of course, is how I, the humble V. Perelman, have to understand it, who doesn’t even have a higher education (education).

By the way, Andrei Gelasimov spoke in approximately the same spirit, timidly trying to defend his point of view regarding the level, using Brazilian football players and American actor Al Pacino as arguments. Other voices of objection were heard, but D. Kuzmin’s point of view, with the help of an authoritative voice (and a petty demon?) somehow prevailed.

That was about the end of the discussion.

It should be noted that, of course, visiting the literary evening of the popular prose writer, one of the most fashionable and sought-after authors of the new literary generation, which brought together masses of his fans and simply connoisseurs of good literature in the amount of about 15 people, the evening took place in one of the most elite literary salons of the capital of our Motherland, during which there was a lively discussion filled with deep meaning and which opened up new creative horizons, certainly enriched me both spiritually and intellectually, allowed me to become familiar with the most pressing issues of modern Russian literature , and receive clear answers to many fundamental questions of existence , look into the most hidden corners of human essence, get acquainted with the secrets of literary craftsmanship and just have a good time and with interest.

On the other hand, after I left the premises that housed the literary club "Author", I cannot shake the feeling that if a literary evening of one of the most fashionable authors in one of the most prestigious clubs has such quantitative and qualitative characteristics that, with all the knowledge available to me, diligence were described, then something needs to be done. Perhaps to save...

Perhaps this thought will seem to some not entirely archetypal and too banal. But then it’s even good, because in any banality there is always a very clear message that is understandable to many. No matter what Andrei Gelasimov says.