Andrey Levkin: "Nose" and reflection on the method

In Krasnoyarsk last week there was a book fair. There, among other things, the compilation of a short-list of the Nose Award took place. I worked there as an expert, which explains some delay in reviews - I thought for a long time if a conflict of interest would arise.

I decided that it should not have arisen. Moreover, the event quite succeeded. The jury’s communication with experts is quite dramatic, which made it possible to even arise that the matter was exclusively in the production of the show. But he, in fact, cannot be arranged without reason - the replicas did not sign in advance.

There is a very specific story. Here, a prize. She should have her own understanding of how to relate to the array of books that were sent there. It is clear that understanding is not set in advance, but appears after reading the sent (it is significant that people from the jury themselves do not nominate anything). The way these approaches are drawn up can be understood by the published part of the jury correspondence. Every year, an array of manuscripts can have some characteristic features and even some sociology is obtained. Well, they always interpreted the letter "C" in the word "nose" (bearing in mind that "n" - new, "o" - domestic). "C" - literature, stylistics, sociality, and sociologism, in the end.

Now, on the fact of the Long List and its transformation into shorts. Further - approximately what I was going to say as an expert and part even said, but not in this form, of course. So, sociology. In fact, it is short and should receive this prize. Because this time in it almost all the meanings of the letter "C" at once. Successful shorts, no questions. This fact follows the sympathy for the jury of the award, since the purpose of the bonus has already been achieved - in the form of a short leaf. None of the texts of such a whole impression in this historical situation will create. Who to choose then?

Blur or homelessness?

As for the historical situation, it consists in the fact that now there is no branched cultural space, inside which you can find your place - not so as to settled, but understanding what type of culture is inherent in it, so that it does not vomit into others - it even applies to writers. “Lays of consciousness”-as was said by the discussion (bearing in mind that they are presented in the Long List) do not manage themselves very much, in fact.

This is partly good. When there is no certainty, the option is excluded when everyone sticks out on their squares, in their layers and competes there, who better expresses the feelings of this square or layer. So this is in Russian journalism: everything is delimited there, inside each site it is clear in advance who, about what and how it will talk. The side (or direct) effect of such a story is that the boundary of the square and the competition inside is built, which no one needs, because it only strengthens the boundaries and walls.

In the literature, that is, it is more prosperous - because here, such blur. Or as S. Lviv "Homelessness" wrote . Here yes, there is a difference of relationships. It’s just good for me. Yes, this is subjective, well, so I specifically stipulate it. And yes, since it is good for me and I more or less feel the parameters of such homelessness, I can’t agree with Lviv’s opinion-there is no one (for my taste) at all. None of the texts. There is completely different.

No, perhaps I got confused, but Lviv’s rights: he has homelessness, not blur. Because homelessness suggests the presence of a house that is not, and blur - does not imply at all. Well, yes, this is quite a radical-marginal winter.

For me, there should be a lot of identification options - that is, there are already many of them, there is only a habit that there can be many of them. Accordingly, there are no options for writing these different options (equal relations between the existing types of culture). The homelessness, of which Lviv, is, perhaps, that everyone lives in his house, and now there are many of them and they are different, because how so, you do not live in the neighboring one: but how do they relate to you there? In this case, the letter options converge to the average.

Stylistic dissonance AS IS

That is, the whole nonsense is exactly that there is no sentence - at least a stylist, within which you can realize your identity. In principle, they are, but they need to delve into them. The world is full of literature, which offers identification options - not necessarily and mainly not by the actual fiction. So digging is right, but for some reason this topic does not exist. In the vicinity of literature - for sure. No, somehow it exists, since you can talk about it at all-I say. But no more.

This is what is clearly about. There is an example on this list, Pelevin with his "pineapple water". There is another completely delusional narrative about some adventures of a certain character. He hit, as expected, in an adventure, they change his psyche along the way, for which, in particular, they put him in a bath with dense water (such as salted). He lies there, his feelings lose shape. Quote:

“ Then they disappeared completely, and it turned out that I was not Semyon Levitan, about whom I know everything, but a certain nameless presence, penetrated by outbreaks of rare and very beautiful lights. And about this nameless presence, I did not know anything, because there was nothing to know about him. It was only possible to stay in it, and it was worth starting to think about him, and thoughts were completely obscured .”

Well, further: " For, I realized, there is no Levitan seeds, but only immeasurable, and in it my very essence and rod is what the rest of the boring world is wound on ." Yes, Pelevin’s quite ordinary pop-bucus, he was always inherent in him, but the question is: if such a scheme is characteristic of him, then why does he not work with it? You can build literature on the basis of such consciousness-not so obviously more interesting, but at least somehow separately. No, then there will be a return of Golimom Narrativ, where it is still about what it will end. We need stories, the lump of a lump of the Lem from the stories about the Pirks pilot had to be borrowed, the devil knows what.

Identification default

That is, this is already a rule: everything must be reduced to something generally accepted. In fact, this is a situation of identification default, in both senses of the word "default" - as a designation of the impossibility of fulfilling obligations (say, by the same self -identification - everyone has such an obligation by default). The second version of the default is precisely “by default”, such as the password on default of the following: 12345 [Enter] and everything is in order, inside.

The second option is more interesting, by default. It is more technological, less evaluative and consists in the fact that it is certainly necessary to tell stories that there is neither cinema nor social networks in the world. The short list quite presents the triumph of this method. We tell stories that (perhaps) mean something and more. Well, they must, since they are told. The main thing in this default is that the identification should be one for all. Actually, unification is also identification.

Of course, much depends on who has what kind of education and everything else. Those who have more reserve have more chances to inadvertently make sense in his fiction. Well, yes, you can write narratives and calculate that then somehow everything will converge in the author’s performance of the nature of things. But, in fact, why not start with this performance, choosing at least his style for it? No, certainly imitated individuals in actions, and something will happen there, which will mean something. Physical reality must, which means that these desired layers of consciousness should also produce. As if these layers of consciousness are constantly performed by the actions of the carcass. There are some glands in that way that distinguish mental activity and culturally identify this individual.

But this is a good short list

This is a good short list, because at least half of the texts are really written there, and do not look like a dictaphone decoding. That is, there is a written Russian, and not a recorded spoken one. Of course, for the scheme, when stories are told, the second option is more suitable, so we can assume that the very presence of a written one notes the fact that there is still an unconscious desire to move away from him towards the letter. And the sheet fixed this, which is its explicit achievement.

There is also a "Gnedich" in the form of a poem. In fact, if you put the poem in a prosaic short list, then this will completely diversify the presented prose-at least in this way the presence of other options for the letter is demonstrated. Or an attempt to direct departure from the conversational to the written one - in the "Writer" Shishkin. Well, yes, it looks in fact, as if he had continued the theme of the letters of the Red Army Sukhov from the "White Sun of the Desert". But maybe there is still any way to write in writing?

In general, everything is successfully reduced there together, so the topics of the attitude to the sheet for experts (returning to the procedure) were not reduced to fundamental objections, but to the fact that it can be subjectively improved and what to add.

In the first case, I would offer Figl-Mighah. I do not feel any personal proximity to this topic, and the pseudonym is not discussed at all, but it would be a normal replacement of Astitzaturov - the same St. Petersburg, it is approximately clear what kind of circle - but I can’t figure out who the author is. That is, no worse than Astitzaturov, but also a secret. In general, the Astituters for the second time in the shorts of the "nose", as if from him there are expected some sudden explanation of everything in the world. Approximately, like from DJ Stalingrad. I can’t say that this explanation will not happen, because what do I know about the expectations of the jury? However, this offer requires replacement in the sheet, which is not supposed to experts

Then an addition: Dmitry Danilov with a "horizontal position". Everything, of course, is subjective: he is approximately from the literature that is interesting to me. At the same time, I do not think that his method makes sense-on the contrary, I believe that it is not necessary to act like this, it will end badly: by conducting some external values ​​around which there will be dancing with a tambourine. Those that do not arise from the text are not related to the type of letter, but are introduced from the outside. Of course, I can be wrong, but this is already from claims that I can’t present to the rest of the books of Short. DD, because everything exists besides the puppet narrative theater, that's what.

And in the short list of the GP, it quite demonstrates what is said - we write stories about individuals. If they are recorded well, then there is a meaning there. Moreover, if he does not appear, then this is also an appropriate result - however, only in his case. This is not the fact that the GP is congenial for the whole short, it is just the most intelligible there.