"I am ashamed that I capitulated before many"

-What is a pen-center as an international organization? How actively does it act? Does it really make sense to unite writers or creative personalities cannot “sing in the choir” and act more efficiently?

- There is a problem of sociality. There are many things that from the earliest times of human history are more convenient to do alone. Human communication in all its diversity is our species sign. There is absolutely nothing bad in professional communities. But there is a deep internal paradox: a group of people is easier to control than scattered loners. The most striking example is the Union of Writers of the USSR. The strong power of the monolith was blinded, and this monolith was self -governing: even if you do not take into account the times of repressions, when the writers in Russia were destroyed by hundreds, the writers' union unanimously and almost unanimously supported the ban on the profession, declared Akhmatova and Zoshchenko, and the exclusion from the writer's organization of Pasternak, and many other interesting stories. The Soviet writer is an interesting phenomenon. And dramatic and sometimes comic. And this is our story, which is not yet comprehended. “Church singing” is the main genre of the Writers' Union.

The international Pen was conceived as a club, and the only goal that he pursued was the expansion of freedom of speech, the rights of the writer (and with the spread of the Internet, everyone becomes a writer!) To a statement.

In Russia, Pen inherited the structure and partly the ideology of the Union of Writers of the USSR, and the current problem of foam is associated with this. And, of course, there is another underwater stone, about which the Russian PEN Center breaks: the habit of old Soviet writers, which are a lot of foam in the ranks, receive some benefits from the state. While Pen is just such an association that does not give it to his members, but, on the contrary, takes away time, strength, attention ... And not to obtain any privileges from the authorities, but in the name of protecting the rights and freedoms of writing words of people organized an international pen club. The club, I emphasize, the club! Work is voluntary, disinterested, socially useful ... You can fight for these rights and freedoms alone, you can with the help of the organization ... and that’s it.

- Is the voice of foam important now in our country?

- No, today there are several human rights and charitable organizations that work more efficiently. For example, the Society "Memorial".

- Why are those who are now leaving the foam for two years now, although they were indignant at a lot? What is dear to people Pen? Does it impose any obligations in the foam?

- It is difficult for me to talk about the reaction of other people in this case, it’s easier - about myself. The conflict that has matured inside the organization escaped to the surface at a peremarous meeting. I, feeling partly responsible for the emergence of this conflict, came out of foam a year earlier, because the element of the struggle for influence and power is not my element.

Inside the foam, there was a complete bureaucratization according to the model of the Old Sovereign. It seemed to me that it was necessary to attract more young people who do not carry these old -Soviet “birthday spots” to themselves. It seemed to me that the Russian Pen-Center could become a more lively and effective organization. The re -bribeing meeting showed the depth of the disaster. I would like to hope that in the end there will be some cleansing and the Russian Pen will be included in the international partner, as an organization that can uphold the right to freedom of speech, and not the right to freedom of kitchen sketches ...

I believe that membership in the foam nevertheless imposes some obligations-to be independent of the opinion of the authorities and not obey the last resolution of the CPSU Central Committee or any other ideological organization.

In Russia, Pen inherited the structure and ideology of the Union of Writers of the USSR.

-Did you consider yourself obligated to do something in 2014 as a member of the foam? How did you want to see Pen?

- Yes, I believed that the Russian Pen should be defended by Savchenko, Sentsov, prisoners of “swamp business”. But I was charged with that I would “politize” Pen that he was an organization of “human rights, but not political”. And in my opinion, a human rights organization cannot be apolitical. Just for the reason that an attack on human rights, an attack on the rights of a writer is a political process that needs to be opposed. For a public good ...

- Is there any replacement of foam in the form of a friendly circle or virtual collection of signatures, club, “private opinion”?

- Yes, without a doubt. So it happens.

- What is the experience of foam in our country? Did he manage to do something human rights?

- Yes, in the previous decade, Pen took part in the defense of people who were far -fetched accusations, and in several cases achieved results.

- What is the “call of Ulitskaya”, which was mentioned by Alexander Ilichevsky and Varvara Gornostaev? What kind of people did you call on the principle of age, talent or willingness to work precisely in a human rights organization?

- My call was that the young writers join Pen and that the “gerontological situation” that has developed in the foam in recent years is slightly refreshed at the expense of new members. And I would like these "new young" to possess both talent and the willingness to work in a human rights organization. I was subsequently reproached for the fact that the reception of new members was in violation of the charter. I really did not know that neither the president of the foam nor the vice president on the existing charter had the right to give recommendations. I gave recommendations. But this position of the charter is not based on anything. I think that the charter must be reviewed in the future in order to remove several unreasonable provisions from it, and at the same time ensure the rotation of the executive committee and the presidential position itself.

- Humanitative activity of foam - what is it? In creating certain texts, participation in meetings, joint cultural projects? One of the commandments of Golsourcy is to fight for the world. How?

- Yes, and in creating texts too. And in the organization of meetings and joint cultural projects. I am very glad that we managed to publish several books that restore the Russian-Ukrainian cultural dialogue with the help of sponsors: a collection of stories of Ukrainian writers, a collection of interviews in 2014, collected by journalist Victoria Ivleva, Face-Bulk, Very Book, a book of warheads in the east of Ukraine, the brilliant book of Marina Vishnevetskaya, dedicated to the processes that occurred with the processes that occurred with The Russian language during 2014, the year of the war. It seems that a book about Russian-Ukrainian history has already been published, created as part of the same project. It was written jointly by historians from Russia and Ukraine. The restoration of cultural space is the type of struggle for the world that is available to writers.

- Your experience of "calling Ulitskaya." Have you torn? Felt disappointed in any form of organization? Have you been pleased with the possibilities of people to work together? (Other, as stated in profiles.)

- There were many disappointments. The main disappointment is in itself. I was too arrogant and squeamish. I did not accept the proposed level of discussion and immediately eliminated without explanation and without a fight. I misleads respected and beloved people. I myself am disappointed in some people who previously aroused respect in me.

On the other hand, I learned many people from their best sides. I saw selflessness, a living conscience, and self -esteem, and talent, and conscientiousness.

And I am ashamed to all these people that I could not share their labors with them and capitulated before many. And I apologize to them all forgiveness for weakness.