Downsizing

Novel Prize Candidates Named

The beginning of the new premium cycle “Booker - Open Russia” risks being remembered more than its upcoming finale. The jury, headed by Vasily Aksenov (critics Alla Marchenko and Evgeny Ermolin, Yaroslavl, writer Nikolai Kononov, St. Petersburg, director of the Moscow Virtuosi orchestra Vladimir Spivakov), got down to business dashingly. About 60 essays were nominated for the prize; the long list included only 22 novels by 21 authors (Krasnoyarsk resident Roman Solntsev is represented by two texts). Moreover, according to Aksenov, the judges were guided by not only formal criteria (date of publication, genre), but also strictly aesthetic ones: now only novels whose authors solve an “artistic problem” are allowed to compete, and not “commercial” products, the manufacturers of which consider themselves writers .

Unlike the arbiters, I do not know by what criteria one can separate “high literature” from others; Such sorting is a very subjective matter. No one demands that experts abandon their tastes and principles when it comes to forming the six applicants and determining the laureate, but starting a bonus story by cutting off more than three dozen writers is overkill. No matter how you feel about the authors left behind, there is absolutely no reason to offend them. And there will be grievances. The writers, of course, knew that their novels were nominated for the prize - now the venerable jury tells them: you are nobody and there is no way to call you. This is where the question arises: are the 22 novelists admitted to the competition really impeccable? Clearly not. And this makes the offense worse. It is difficult to resist thoughts about taste, and even groupism. For example, I know from three different sources that Marina Paley’s novel “Clemens” (Neva, 2005, No. 3-4) was nominated. Regarding this work, to put it mildly, with restraint, I must note: you can reproach him for anything, but not for the lack of an “artistic task” or an orientation toward commerce. By the way, isn’t the “commercial” sight noticeable in Dmitry Bykov’s “Tow Truck” (M., “Vagrius”) or Victor Pelevin’s “The Sacred Book of the Werewolf” (M., “Eksmo”) left at a distance? Or literally any novel by my beloved chairman of the jury?

Staff reductions are carried out for a good purpose: other publishers nominate their authors not with the expectation of success, but only in order to somehow highlight them. A helpful fool is more dangerous than an enemy, but stupidity should not be responded to with rudeness. If the principles do not allow modest publicity for all applicants, then there is another way out - not to disclose the long list at all. Of course, by informing the publishers ahead of time: then (we hope) there will be fewer stupid nominations and, alas, well-founded grievances.

If the jury treated the writers without unnecessary sentimentality, then they pleased one of their members to the fullest. At the press conference, it was announced that Maestro Spivakov would take up his judicial duties “at the shortlist stage.” It is not entirely clear whether he will deign to read 22 novels (that is, will participate in the formation of the six) or will deign to evaluate only the main contenders. Horseradish is not sweeter than radish. The tradition of including a “representative of the cultural community” in the jury makes sense (and quite a lot!), but on one condition: this “representative” loves to read and does not perceive judging as a burden. (Or at least imitates such a position.) Otherwise, the same tradition works to lower the status of literature. The history of our awards, unfortunately, knows many examples of demonstrations of lordly disregard for literature on the part of the “judge-artists,” but even among them the remark of the over-busy maestro, who thanked his colleagues on the jury for their concern and complained that his head was already full of garbage, will not be lost. And thank you, Vladimir Teodorovich!

After drying out, the list does not shine with surprises and does not promise rich intrigue. It's funny that nine contestants (slightly less than half) have already been included in the booker shortlists. These are Leonid Girshovich (“Viy”, Schubert’s vocal cycle to the words of Gogol” - M., “Text”), Oleg Ermakov (“Canvas” - “New World”, 2005, No. 3-4), Oleg Zayonchkovsky ( "Petrovich" - M., "O.G.I."), Mikhail Levitin ("Brother and Benefactor" - M., "Text"; in fact, the novels of Zayonchkovsky and Levitin were previously published by "October", but then they were not nominated for Booker - such a strange somersault, in my opinion, is allowed by the rules), Anatoly Naiman (“Kablukov” - “October”, 2004, No. 8--9; the book was recently published by “Vagrius”), Sergei Nosov (“ The rooks have flown away" - St. Petersburg, "Limbus-press", Alexey Slapovsky ("They" - M., "Eksmo"; the author has already been in the top six four times), Elena Chizhova ("Criminal" - "Star" , 2005, No. 1--2), Mikhail Shishkin (“Venus’ hair” - “Banner”, 2005, No. 4--6; in 2000 Shishkin became a laureate). The roles of dark horses are played by Evgeny Kuznetsov (“The Life of God” - “Rybinsk Compound”) and Vladimir Shpakov (“Games on the Waterloo Field” - “Neva”, 2004, No. 12). Other writers are well known: in addition to those mentioned above, they are Vladimir Aleinikov (“Feast” - “Znamya”, 2005, No. 3), Svetlana Vasilyeva (“Excellent People” - M., “Greita”), Andrey Volos (“Animator” -- "October", 2004, No. 12, 2005, No. 1), Denis Gutsko ("Without a path or trace" - "Friendship of Peoples", 2004, No. 11--12), Boris Evseev ("Romanchik" - “October”, 2005, No. 2), Maria Rybakova (“Brotherhood of the Losers” - M., “Time”), Mariam Yuzefovskaya (“Besa me mucho” - “Continent”, 2004, No. 3). A number of applicants were profiled in detail in our newspaper.

There is no point in speculating about the choice of judges. First of all, because I myself cannot make a decent (at least from my point of view) six from the proposed material. Honestly, I would have made do with three (the Booker constitution allows it): Aleinikov (it’s a no brainer that “The Feast” is not a novel, but this poem is sung too beautifully), Zayonchkovsky, Slapovsky. I will not argue with the encouragement of the young (but very uneven) Gutsko. I will take for granted Naiman’s inclusion in the shortlist (of which I am 90 percent sure, although “Kablukov” seems to me at the same time the most ambitious and weakest work of the brilliant intellectual writer)... Well, and again starting a barrel organ about Pelevin with Bykov and Shishkin - - excuse me. It's been talked about. But I admit that in October it will be necessary again. We'll live and see. Although it would be more interesting for me to look at the list of “outcasts”.

Andrey NEMZER