Natalya Ivanova. Putin the writer

Putin the writer
Natalia Ivanova

Publication date: March 1, 2004

What would the political scientists, who have become bored in recent months, do, what would the media, fading by spring, do, if not for the turn , or, literary speaking, the ups and downs set by Putin’s scenario - under the heading “Government - Resign”?

How everyone, however, perked up! The eyes sparkled, the wrinkles straightened. We felt in demand. They put on ties of different shades of red to make the TV picture look better. They quickly began to put together round tables, iron their trousers, and wash their necks. Well, what an interesting plot device!

I don’t know whether VV himself or someone from his entourage comes up with plot moves together, whether the team is working and considering options under the common brand of Putin (Marinina is Marinina or the “authors”?) or the author of political turns himself personally, but he got everyone involved into your new story. “Putin’s scenario,” as Svanidze said in the last program. And Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky came running first, and, a little nervous and out of breath with happiness to say - spread - the news, they reported that. What about - you already know .

At the same time, Putin is terribly pleased, chuckles into a non-existent mustache, jokes with students in Krasnoyarsk , next to whom he feels - which is not difficult - more confident than with various unpleasant adults who ask not always pleasant questions.

Political scientists are also having fun: you just have to look at their overexcited faces on all channels where there is non-stop commentary on the “strong move”.

And the retired ministers rejoice and the next day they kiss in front of television cameras. Why not rejoice - they completed their life tasks, achieved their set goals, and are now free from the state. responsibilities, will develop success. I'm talking about those who fly right through. And others - others will continue to work for the good of society, etc. people. There is no doubt about this and never has been.

So, Putin and political scientists resemble the writer-literary critics system. The writer composed a plot and “printed” it - interpreters rushed to interpret it. The plot is interesting because it has one central unknown. “An auditor is coming to see us. How is the auditor?” Who is the auditor? Maybe he is already sitting next to the officials and, choking with laughter, collecting fantastic information and assumptions. The main thing is not this: the main thing is that absolutely nothing depends on their (political scientists, literary critics) opinion in the “work of art” itself, in its very plot.

And how can it depend - with their irresponsibility? Misunderstanding - even - the meaning of the words they use?

Or rather, this: their meaning of words changes depending on who they apply these words (words) to.

Let's say the word liberal . Recently, the further one goes into the forest, the more negative it is used. Woohoo! - damned liberals, that’s what one hears from the pages of “LG” :

“Before, everything was simple: on the one hand there were the people, on the other - the oligarchs and liberals who robbed them.” “Our liberals, enriching themselves, generously shared with the West” (Mikhail Delyagin).

“Putin changed the base of power, he limited the influence of the liberal elite on society” (Alexander Tsipko).

"The Secret Desires of Liberals."
“...politicians who were called liberal... worked on a different principle: “We will corrupt the parliament, communists, courts to our level, we will corrupt the press to our level” (Vitaly Tretyakov; “Alternative” to no alternative,” “LG” # 8).

“One of the liberal bluffs...” ( Alexander Prokhanov , Izvestia, 02/26/2004).

But while the liberals are corrupting - in Tretyakov's style - the communists, let's return to Putin. As soon as this word is attached to it, it will make him rich:

“Putin is a more consistent liberal than Yeltsin” (M. Delyagin, speech at the same round table).

This means that if Putin is a liberal, then this is good; if others are disgusting. It is in this logic that political science thought develops in our country.

“There were two brilliant politicians in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century - Stalin and Lenin. Then a big failure at 80 years old, and it is quite possible that life is about to give birth to a new one” (V. Tretyakov).

Thanks for the hope. Here comes the regret. A. Prokhanov regrets in Izvestia:

“...He doesn’t have (is it clear who has “him”? It should be capitalized... - N.I. ) a major formulated strategy, no big projects, he’s not starting a new Northern Sea Route, he’s not starting a new Gulag.” .

In the meantime, all this more than irresponsible chatter rattles like the rattles of Stalin and the Gulag, Putin continues to travel around Russia. And where is he going? The sign is given : to Viktor Astafiev, in Ovsyanka. Sign - to whom? Which? They will decipher it again. After all, Astafiev, Putin may think, is a patriot. From these, from the "villagers". This is the information the president has. And the newspaper “Day of Literature” again reminds us that the “patriots” cursed Astafiev for “the rabid Russophobia that poured out of him like a fountain,” just in time for Putin’s arrival at Astafiev’s grave, in Sergei Semanov’s article “The Last Refuge...” - Naturally, catching up, it would be necessary to put double quotes. In "Questions of Literature" a study by K. Azadovsky " Correspondence from two corners of the Empire " appeared - about the famous correspondence between V. Astafiev and N. Eidelman - and here the late Viktor Petrovich was still recommended as an unrepentant xenophobe. So Putin went - to whom? To this guy Viktor Petrovich - or to this guy? Doesn't give an answer. Poetics of pauses and silences.

And the plot is getting stronger. The storyteller makes riddles. And we figure it all out. "The Mystery of Dostoevsky." "The Mystery of Solzhenitsyn." The interpreters will try their best - they will explain, offer options, compare, compare and argue.

Anything is better than drinking vodka.