Old-timers won't remember

The history of the prize for the novel of the year has been enriched with the most ridiculous shortlist

Talking about the long list of candidates for the Booker - Open Russia Prize (see Vremya Novostei, June 28) , I suggested that the spectacularly meaningless beginning of the current novel competition will be remembered more than its subsequent stages. I was wrong - there is no limit to perfection! Having removed two thirds of the nominees from the race in advance, the jury selected a truly amazing six. The choice, according to the chairman of the judging panel, Vasily Aksenov, “was determined by the priority of living life, as well as the search for the genre and parameters of the modern Russian novel.” (And we thought - an old Portuguese opera!) “Living life” coupled with “parameters” Aksenov and his colleagues - critics Alla Marchenko and Evgeny Ermolin (Yaroslavl), writer Nikolai Kononov (St. Petersburg), musician Vladimir Spivakov - discovered in the novels of Denis Gutsko (“Without a Path or Trace” - “Friendship of Peoples”, 2004, No. 11, 12; now published as a book in “Vagrius”), Boris Evseev (“Romanchik” - “October”, 2005, No. 2; book edition - “Time”, Oleg Ermakov (“Canvas” - “New World”, 2005, No. 3, 4), Roman Solntsev (“Bonanza” - “Day and Night”, 2005, No. 3--4, 5--6; “Minus Lavrikov” - “Neva”, 2004, No. 8), Anatoly Naiman (“Kablukov” - “October”, 2004, No. 8, 9; book edition - “ Vagrius") and Elena Chizhova ("Criminal" - "Star", 2005, No. 1, 2).

There are no shortlists that please everyone. Confusion, grievances, and disagreements have been expressed even now. Very emotional. Perhaps, in our entire recent award history, I don’t remember such unanimous rejection of the judge’s choice. I understand my colleagues who gave vent to irony and anger at the press conference. But I can’t separate their impulse. The result is so clear that it cannot be discussed.

No, I’m not saying that the judges didn’t like the novels that are closest and most interesting to me (“The Feast” by Vladimir Aleynikov, “Petrovich” by Oleg Zayonchkovsky, “They” by Alexey Slapovsky) - differences in taste are in the order of things, and my preferences are not for anyone decree. But the top six did not include “Tow Truck” by Dmitry Bykov, “Animator” by Andrey Volos, or “Viy”. Schubert's vocal cycle to the words of Gogol" by Leonid Girshovich, "The Sacred Book of the Werewolf" by Viktor Pelevin, "The Hair of Venus" by Mikhail Shishkin - that is, books for which you would not suspect me of liking. I wrote about them sharply (or very sharply), if they had been in the six, I would most likely have again stated my aesthetic and ideological disagreements with the authors, I could have lamented the difference in views with the judges, I could have been sad about their decision, but I did not doubt would be within his reason. At the time of their publication, I considered it necessary to speak out about all these works - that is, I recognized their presence in literature, their correlation with certain sociocultural trends, their modernity and significance . I cannot see anything similar in the works of Evseev, Ermakov, Solntsev and Chizhova.

What kind of “living life” is there if in the novels of Evseev and Chizhova about the recent (I at least remember) past there is no smell of elementary verisimilitude? What kind of search for a genre is there if Ermakov’s “Canvas” (given my long-standing love for the prose writer and many years of self-persuasion: well, he should finally wake up, return to himself - after all, he was such a writer! ) can only be read to the end out of duty? What is the way out of the “Booker crowd” (the pretentious sentiment of jury member Alla Marchenko), when three of the applicants (Ermakov, Naiman, Chizhova) have already been on the shortlist, and the literary establishment has been running around with the “young” (thirty-six-year-old) Gutsko for three years what about the written bag? (We’ll return to this sad story later.) Funny logic: get on the shortlist for the second time with Girshovich, Zayonchkovsky, Mikhail Levitin (“Brother and Benefactor”), Sergei Nosov (“The Rooks Have Flew Away”), Shishkin - “party”, and if “our chosen ones” are the blessing of the air. Honestly, you want to say that Slapovsky infuriates you with his winning record, re-releases, four-time inclusion in the Booker shortlists, success on TV, still unforgiven unauthorized (without certificates from “experienced” editors-benefactors) entry into literature and ability write, and say so. If you want to say that you are afraid to give Shishkin another Booker (especially after he received the “National Bestseller”), then say so. If you want to say that Zayonchkovsky, who last year announced himself again without asking or patronage, is in your throat - say so. And about “parties” and “live life” - no need. It's funny without that.

And don’t talk about the fact that Gutsko, they say, writes well, but is edited poorly (the same Marchenko). We are not at a production meeting at Friendship of Peoples. Prizes are not given for “good intentions.” What the hysterical petting of “nuggets” leads to (which is primarily humiliating to them) can be seen in the example of Ermakov, whose current encouragement cannot be called anything other than alms. Gutsko is truly a gifted writer. And he really needs a smart (strong-willed, not ingratiating) editor. The novel “Without a Path or Trace” is written sloppily, the plot either twitches or sags, the denouement is in no way motivated. The text is much inferior to the previous story “There, by the Rivers of Babylon”, which in the edition of “Vagrius” was suddenly designated as the “first part” of the novel - however, fair ideas about the composition! What kind of award are we talking about here?

And they don’t even talk about her. It seems clear to everyone that Naiman will be crowned with laurels. Who would argue: although “Heels” does not seem to me to be Naiman’s most successful novel (and secondary in relation to his previous works, and too pretentious), there is no doubt about the significance of this work. Just as there is no doubt about the long-standing and strong friendship of Naiman and Aksenov, monuments of which can be found in the books of both writers. Nyman is the only undisputed figure on the shortlist. Naiman could deservedly claim the award in a much better environment. The birdless nature created by the will of the jury will not add honor to him. I wish it didn't decrease.

However, the “flexibility” of the judging team protects against the desire to predict anything. If they want for the third time (after the tactlessly truncated longlist and the cartoonish six) to show the most respectable public something “different”, they will. And those who are now quoting Taras Bulba ( There is no bond more holy than comradeship ) will have to hum melancholy: Oh, why was there a fence in the garden? Oh, why did you plant cabbage?

Andrey NEMZER