Discussions around the prize '' Poet ''

'' Banner 'and' "star 'decide the fate of the prize' 'Poet' '

Marina Timasheva: The Moscow Literary magazine 'Banner' 'came to visit the St. Petersburg Literary magazine' 'Zvezda' 'in order to discuss the further fate of the Poet of the prize. Says Tatyana Voltskaya.

Tatyana Voltskaya: The Russian National Prize 'The Poet' 'has been established by the Society for the Promotion of Russian Poetry in 2005, it has been awarded for 6 years. Her laureates were Alexander Kushner, Olesya Nikolaev, Oleg Chukhontsev, Timur Kibirov, Inna Lisnyanskaya and Sergey Gandlevsky. '' We are just trying in our destroyed, `` garroneous '' 'and' flattened ''

The literary space is to recreate a kind of vertical, the hierarchy of names, values and talents on which the incessant number of refined experts would have come together, but most of the reading estate '' - this is how the prize chairman, the chief editor of the magazine, the banner Sergey Chupinin. On his initiative in Moscow, a big discussion was held about the “Poet” prize, and now he decided to transfer it to the Petersburg space.

Sergey Chuprinin: The National Literary Prize 'The Poet' 'This is the largest poetic prize in the world. This is a prize that is not awarded for a specific book, not for a specific publication, but by the totality of the done. Therefore, the jury reports only the decision that is made. So, as far as I know, all closed literary awards in the world are arranged, for example, the Nobel Prize. Often they pretend that a different leak of information occurs. Say, the Moscow poet Kostya Kedrov goes everywhere as a person who was nominated for the Nobel Prize, but the fact that he walks and talks about it means that he has not nominated anywhere, because it is closed, secretly. Also arranged, from Russian awards, the Triumph Prize - the same with our prize, also 50 thousand US dollars in ruble equivalent. When a decision arose to create such a large prize, a number of literary critics and historians of Russian poetry were invited, ten number, in order to perform a verdict and court. Then the second additional decision was made - the winners of the award replenish the composition of the jury. Moreover, the laureate of this year becomes the chairman of the jury next year. This second additional decision led to the fact that two critics left the composition of the jury. At the end of February, each year, as a prize coordinator, I send emails to all jury members with a request to name two names. It is assumed that 30 names may occur, but this never happens, has never been called. Then, by the way, the so -called “soft rating votes” the list is reduced.

Tatyana Voltskaya: One of the critics who left the jury of the prize, co -editor of the magazine 'Zvezda' 'Andrei Aryev, considers the mechanism of the formation of the jury vicious.

Andrey Aryev: Well, what really happens? When for the first time we organized `` Union of Poets '' in the 20th year, poets gathered, chose Blok as a chairman. Everything is wonderful. Then it turned out that a little more representatives of the Gumilyov school, and then the block was shifted. Future acmeists negatively related to the phenomenon of symbolism and the block, as a representative of this course. The fact that they impudently replaced Blok, a poet of a much deeper, but another plan, he is a symbolist, this is an absolute reality. And since Blok hated them, he wrote a wonderful famous article “without a deity, without inspiration '', where all these“ workshops ”went, as representatives of“ not poetry ”''. And since it was decided to introduce poets into the jury, one poetic thought, one poetic school. The opinion of poets about literature and poetry is very narrow. No Mikhail Eremin, a wonderful poet, absolutely alien to the majority of sitting poets here, will never even be mentioned, although he is a lively, wonderful poet, incredibly complex, so metaphorical, metaphysics. But he simply will not be, because these poets, who are only six more, will never be considered that this is poetry. Initially, this award was an absolutely objective prize that literature historians give, and the new principle, in my opinion, will lead to that soon (and this is an authoritative prize, it is remarkable that it is, it is at least physically helping people to live), that the prize will go to those who inherit St. Petersburg acmeism. Random Kibirov, of course, will never appear in it again, and Gandlevsky is a poet quite Petersburg.

Tatyana Voltskaya: But the poet Elena Ushakova believes that, on the contrary, the opinions about who the real poet is, will diverge more and more.

Elena Ushakova: The mechanism of fame is now not what he was, say, in the 19th century, when Belinsky wrote an article, and it was clear that Lermontov was a great poet. Now the poet must be '' promoted '' - this is such an expressive, characteristic word, and it reflects the sad state of affairs. In general, unfortunately, '' promotes '' - then Moscow - Muscovites. Meanwhile, in St. Petersburg, poetry is very wonderful, and not only in St. Petersburg, but also in the province. Oleg Klishin from Omsk, Dmitry Kantov from Vladimir, Vladimir Kryukov from Tomsk. And you go to some kind of impasse when you think why, in fact, talented people cannot break into Moscow magazines. The point is that there is some correct selection and this' promotion '' went in some other way.

Tatyana Voltskaya: Is it so good when Belinsky declares Lermontov a great poet, ”the critic Samuel Lurie doubts this.

Samuel Lurie: Belinsky simultaneously declared Koltsov a great poet, for example, and Bestuzhev -Marlinsky - a mediocre prose writer. And he did many more nonsense, and sometimes distant nonsense, and this led to tradition, when, indeed, the reputation began to depend on the opinion of the dominant critic, which led, in particular, to the fact that Fet was, as we know, for a long time, absolutely a gender poet of the second and third row.

Tatyana Voltskaya: The Soviet principle of poetic reputation has been laid down in the prize '' Poet '', ”says writer Nikolai Kryshchuk.

Nikolai Kryshchuk: I think that people with a reputation that is made in Soviet times will be nominated. And then this list, of course, can be supplemented, but it is very small. If we talk about the poets who arose in the last decade, then, firstly, there is also a rather strange principle of poetic experience. I think that when Samoilov released the Wave and Stone '', the best, probably his collection, he could not claim this prize - still small experience. As we do not have civil society, so we and we have no literary society, absolutely authoritative critics, we will start with this. Who is in this jury? I don't know this list. In Soviet times, yes, there was a team of authoritative critics and listened to them, now this field of critical simply does not exist, as, however, does not exist even this intelligible poetry, at least a reader's attitude to poetry. Therefore, the speech will be, the further, the more, to go about the so -called, '' promoted '' names. How they are '' spin-ups '' We, in general, know, not to mention the fact that not thick magazines create an opinion, unfortunately. If we talk about a certain statistical reader's opinion, then it is, of course, the Internet. In addition, firstly, promotion is carried out in strange ways, secondly, strange people, thirdly, it all spins, of course, around Moscow, nothing is to do with it, this is a rather common phenomenon. I can’t have such a regional resentment, but it is quite obvious: the jury consists of Muscovites, and television programs are made by Muscovites, and Muscovites are invited to any talk show. There is a large Moscow party and, unfortunately, when this list of undoubted reputations compiled, I repeat, at another time and in another era, all this will come to Moscow awards, unfortunately, unfortunately, again, a subjective principle.

Tatyana Voltskaya: Be that as it may, it was from this discussion that the prize 'The poet' 'opened its seventh season.

Marina Timasheva: Tatyana Voltskaya allowed us to listen to the opinions of the participants in the discussion about the “poet” prize. It is difficult to judge who is right, who is to blame. In my opinion, the most reasonable thing is to form a jury not only from poets and critics, but from people respected in society of different professions.