Andrey Levkin: A letter to colleague Loyola

Dear Ignacio, such a story: here now all the time they remember someone. Either Mahatma G., then Schmidt-Baduh-Lenin, adapting them to his actual thoughts. And the fiction writer Z. Prilepin just wrote a letter to I. Stalin . From here it is clear: a certain business is at a dead end and everyone needs to somehow correlate with the experience of colleagues. So I write to you now.

The reason was just Prilepin’s letter to Stalin, but I will start with the background, which very characterizes the current phase of human mind. The situation, frankly, is acute. For example, recently leggyman Lehrer resigned from New Yorker. He quit because in two months of work he talked very much. He inserted pieces of his old texts into his New Yorker blogs, all that. And then he slapped into his next bestseller ("Imagine: How Creativity Works"), as it were, pieces of interviews with Bob Dylan, where phrases that Dylan did not speak. And this strained the publisher (when it turned out), he even annulled the book, cutting the circulation, well, etc. - Word for word and Lehrer had to leave The New Yorker.

Well, the kid is 31 years old, he is somehow popular in the masses there. In particular, he wrote books where he intelligibly explained to the people all sorts of secrets. For example, what exactly Proust did and what neurobiology (or neurology) is. More precisely, he said that Proust was just that ("Prouust Was a Neuroscientist"). Then he still had some kind of bestseller, everything is ok. For this reason, they took him in New Yorker. And he, apparently, did not make up for his efforts: the next bestseller needs to be written, and the speakers. In a word, he fell into hack and had to quit quotation marks, which should not have been.

But it is not even about this story, but about how individual columnists perceived it. For example, Meghan Daum in Chicago Tribunes. You should know Chicago - there is a university of your name, and the missionary of your order even died in those places when there was no city. The column Megan, of course, is tolerant with all the pros and cons. Well, that is, yes, a direct speech - it is such that they backed and hug there, pronounce unnecessary words -bindings "I think", "see", "ums" and "you knows". Well, how can you not stop them? But in the end there will be a quote that did not objectively exist. That is, everything is in place, but this is still not exactly a direct speech. Reality suffers somewhat, yes. Of course, you can give a direct curve speech in a cleaned retelling, but it is even worse. In a word, it happens for anyone, but there is a border? Well, if something is not said at all or they say not at all what happens later in quotation marks? But only he is not from evil, so he, Lehrer, decided that it would be clearer.

But not only an interview. This is how documentary and historical films (this is still writing by the Los Angeles Columnist Chicago Tribunes). They also add some staged episodes to them, if only the audience would not get bored. The question is the same where the border. Because somehow reality can be lost at all, right? That is, everything is in order, to look even more interesting, but there should be some reality? Because, as the journalist Daum writes, from a logical phrase that you should not believe everything that I read, the reader may come to the option not to believe anything read.

Further, Daum already has an almost artistic paragraph about what the journalist will take sometimes, and he will present any item so pleasant that you just look at the page and everything is already clear, and even as if sexy. But Real Life is Complicated and Generally Unsexy, Which Means that, Most of the Time, The Sentences and Paragraphs We Uscrist It Will Be Too (here, in general, it is said that life is said that life is said Zhostche). Lerer, respectively, has gained success, turning complex ideas into simple and attractive, making both Proust and Neuroscience much more understandable than they really. But the reader was able to feel his own sophistication: he understand a-ayet!

And here is a wonderful phrase: " What Has Also Collapsed is Collective Tolerance for Complexity, OUR Appetite for Concepts that CANT BE CAPTURED in CATCHY TITLAS TITLAS TITLESS Corporate Mantras and Self-Shelp Seminars.

That is, our collective tolerance has problems with a complex problem. We have lost taste for the fact that it cannot be stated with catchy headlines, corporate mantra-memes and at seminars on personal self-improvement. And, in fact, referring to all this, what is surprised that someone puts fake/adapted quotes?

This is cute: it would seem simple America, but " What Has Also Collapsed Is Oour Collective Tolerance for Complexity ". They know what is difficult, yes. Of course, with the current media mess and the first amendment, everyone can speak-speak, but, since they know that there are complex things that cannot be told to everyone, then they understand the difference?

This is an occasion to this letter. Z. Prilepin wrote to. Stalin, as it were, not from himself, but from a certain group of persons, who, in fact, experiences bad feelings for Comrade Stalin for all the good that he did for them in life. Given the positions set in his essay, we are talking about Jews. There is no need to comment on this part, there the Jews themselves cope . It is different: this one, as it were, signed not the “Jews of Russia” or “persons of Jewish nationality of the USSR”, but the “ Russian liberal public ”. So everyone who does not divide the point of view of Z. Prilepin on I. Stalin and its role in the arrangement of the USSR, immediately automatically Jews, without options. Probably it’s easier for him to live. Of course, this moment in kind is actualized, referring in mind the current historical reality and all that.

In this one can even see a certain Jesuit maneuver on the topic of how to pack those who do not agree with it. But this, of course, is the option of Jesuity for those for whom books such as "Prouust Was a Neuroscientist" are written. But, ignacio, the question is not how to treat people with a weakened distinction between entities, that is, to assholes. I don’t even ask for advice, how to nevertheless adapt them for something for the common good: where to adapt there, there are so many of them now that they are already the main ones.

But this is what: these simpletons of all ideological types, they will agree with each other, finally realizing their socio-humid proximity. That’s that they will get drunk who still has at least Tolerance for Complexity - if nature does not finally take their own. In a word, convey to nature that it would be time for her to act, otherwise they are already tired.