Dialogue on Broadway

Alexander Genis: On the air, the dialogue on Broadway, which we conduct with culturalist Solomon Volkov in the Broadway studio Radio Liberty.

Solomon, what is they talking about Broadway?

Solomon Volkov: On Broadway, the death of two titans of American journalism mourn - these are really titanic figures, and they died almost simultaneously. This is Hugh Hefner, publisher of the Playboy magazine and Samuel or, as he was called, Sa Newhaus, publisher ...

Alexander Genis: Everything else.

Solomon Volkov: Yes, the owner of a whole empire of glamorous magazines and the main intellectual magazine of America, New Yorker.

Alexander Genis: Today we should talk about each of them, because these are people. At the same time, Hefner was escorted by disputes - in the necrologues it was about social changes, about political changes, about how he changed the structure of America’s daily life, no more, no less. I learned a lot about him. This figure is quite odious, but nevertheless, it was also talked about with great respect, because it is believed that he changed the mores of America. The question is, for the better or for the worst? But his magazine is undoubtedly a large event in the life of the press in general. You know, in the 70s, in the era, when the playboy was an important magazine, his circulation was 6.5 million copies. It was, of course, the most important male magazine.

Solomon Volkov: It was the peak of Playboy, of course.

Alexander Genis: I always thought: what is it connected with? On the one hand, of course, naked women, and it was unusual at one time. After all, he became famous for that, printed photos of naked Marilyn Monroe, taken when she was not yet a star and her was not yet called Marilyn Monroe. Of course, not because of the texts they bought a magazine. But they themselves were very curious in the magazine themselves. Nabokov was printed there, Appadike, Vonnig.

Solomon Volkov: The most stupid texts in the "playboy", which, what do you think?

Alexander Genis: Letters of readers.

Solomon Volkov: We did not say a word.

Alexander Genis: Letters of readers were specially composed.

Solomon Volkov: Everything was composed in the bowels of Playboy.

And in this sense, the “playboy” was no different from the Soviet publications, there, too, all the letters of readers were composed in the editorial office. We know this because we worked in the newspaper Soviet Youth in Riga.

Alexander Genis: Even more interesting than prose, there were interviews in Playboy. Detailed large specialized interviews were printed there, and of various people. Probably the most famous interview was given by Jimmy Carter.

Solomon Volkov: It almost torpedoed his presidential campaign.

Alexander Genis: Yes, because he frankly answered questions. But my favorite story with the interview is connected with Zhirinovsky. When he came to America at the peak of his glory, a comic story occurred. The journalists followed him all the time. They talked about the fact that the Zhirinovsky man is strange, like a holy fool - for example, eats with his hands. Moreover, Zhirinovsky said that at customs he stole vodka, which he was taking with him to America.

Solomon Volkov: Which side did the customs officers stole?

Alexander Genis: Allegedly, American customs officers stole. But the most funny story was that he immediately said that he would give an interview only for money. But you, of course, know that in America you can’t pay for an interview, no media body has the right to pay for an interview, because it is considered a hidden bribe - a threat of objectivity. The journalist can feed the interlocutor with dinner in the most expensive restaurant - this is possible, but they do not give money to anyone. Including Zhirinovsky. He was terribly offended when he learned about this and refused all the interviews. But then one publication agreed to interview him - and it was a “playboy”. They paid him a thousand dollars. He was interviewed by one impudent journalist who left nothing from his male dignity, because she basically asked about his genitourinary apparatus. It was a terrible story, Playboy earned his odious glory that day, as never before.

But the "playboy", of course, is the era. It is curious that everyone somehow treats him. There are no indifferent. How do you feel about this magazine?

Solomon Volkov: Of course, one of the first editions that I acquired, having reached America, was precisely the “playboy”. Moreover, I must say that, unlike other magazines that were probably considered, as openly pornographic, and if you remember, they were sold in brown envelopes so that other people would not see that you take such porn. But Penthouse and Penthouse, who rival the magazine in the field of naked women, they were spent calmly in the windows. Because in fact, after all, in the end, in this magazine, in this magazine, from the very beginning. And this was the idea of Hefner: it will be. He assured, erotic magazine, not pornographic. With the exception of photographs of naked women, very restrained, if you can use this word made with taste, everything else was high -class journalism. The stories of the best American writers were printed, very interesting research, investigative reports and, of course, interviews, which, I must say, for me served a large extent to the school. I still have two volumes “Selected Interviewing Playboy”, at one time I studied them, I assure you, extremely carefully.

Alexander Genis: The very situation in which people agreed to give an interview with a “playworm” say something about the head of the head.

Solomon Volkov: And judge for ourselves, we will speak and compare two magazines, on the one hand the playboy, on the other side of New Yorker - these are two poles of American journalism, powerful magazines, each in their own way. But what is interesting, you noticed that New Yorker never printed interviews, they print what is called profiles, that is, such an essay that are also exemplary in their field. I remember, for example, how I read I read for the first time, it was printed in the Library of Light, remember, there were such small books.

Alexander Genis: Yes, Salinger, for example, went out in this series.

Solomon Volkov: It was the “profile” of the work of Elena Ross, an American journalist, about Hemingway. I read, it was like a lightning blow to me, I didn’t read anything like that.

Alexander Genis: Because these profiles are a feature of the American press, this, in my opinion, is the best genre that is here in magazine life. It is very sorry that in Russia he has not yet taken root.

Solomon Volkov: And the champion is still Newyorker, the best profiles are printed there. In connection with the Playboy and in connection with the fact that you rightly said that most of the Necrologists about Hugh Hefner concentrated just on his progressive social role. Moreover, it is not in terms of exposure - this is also a huge phenomenon - someone can consider it a conquest, and someone - degradation, but, of course, the influence of Hefner in such an area as the struggle against discrimination, as the fight against segregation.

Alexander Genis: The struggle for the rights of women.

Solomon Volkov: The struggle for the rights of minorities of all kinds. This is all, of course, the merit of Hefner. There is an interesting episode. One of my Frands, a journalist named Irina Gruzdeva, printed a story after Hefner's death about how she was from the post -Soviet magazine, which she does not call, wanted to take an interview with Hefner. And Hefner was ready to give the Russian journal an interview, but the condition was that he would talk about this of his social activities and about his charitable activity, which, as it turned out, was very great. But the magazine in Russia was not interested in Khefner’s social activity, they were only interested in ...

Alexander Genis: Nude?

Solomon Volkov: No, Hefner's sexual life, and he, in turn, did not at all interest him. And so nothing of this interview did not work out. An interesting collision of mentality here. Hefner thought: once in Russia there was socialism, then it will be interested in his progressive activity - the struggle for rights ...

Alexander Genis: Now it’s not the same country, but before the struggle for the rights was simply planted ...

Solomon Volkov: That's what I still want to remember in connection with the “playboy”. I have an art rarity on the wall in my New York apartment-this is the cover of a magazine given to me by Sergey Dovlatov called the Russian playboy. He painted it himself. Two nesting dolls with the corresponding genitals and in large letters are depicted the inscription "Russian playboy No. 1". Sasha, you were related to the failed in the end, as I understand it, the release of this magazine?

Alexander Genis: The most direct. This was one of the most funny projects, which the three of us, with Dovlatov and Vile, tried to implement, namely, to create the first erotic magazine in Russian. Let's not forget that then, in 1981, it seems, there was a live-Soviet power, and in Russia nothing of the kind could be. And we really not only wrote a magazine, but also prepared for printing, that is, it was completely reversed. The biggest contribution was Dovlatov, because he not only wrote a very lyrical, I would say, a story about sex, but also acted as an artist-former. Sergei painted perfectly. This cover - nesting dolls with genitals - was wonderful, but each page of the magazine was also hung, as if to say it, on a member, each of them gave his personality. One way or another, the magazine was funny. For example, I wrote a large article about erotic art, Petya compiled a dictionary of bed jargon .. There was a gossip section, it was called "in the keyhole."

Solomon Volkov: It's already funny. What did you not publish retroactively the content of this magazine?

Alexander Genis: Now I will tell you what happened.

It was a stagnation, completely ready for printing, now it was necessary to sell it. And there were some people from Philadelphia, who had their own printing house. They wanted to buy this magazine and agree with us that we will publish the rest of our rest once a month. We brought them a magazine to Philadelphia, they took a layout and gave us a check for a thousand dollars in exchange for this. Moreover, in the word “Thousand” there were two spelling errors, however, on this check we received cash, I still am surprised by this. But I have never seen these people again, and the magazine disappeared, because we have no copies. I sometimes think that somewhere this publication is located, it would be nice to find it, because it disappeared meet.

Solomon Volkov: It would be a historical release.

Alexander Genis: I am to our share and I from afar Igor Efimov in “Hermitage”, our first book, which, on the advice of the publisher, was chastely called “Modern Russian Prose”.

Solomon Volkov: An erotic slope sponsored your debut.

Alexander Genis: Then, already in the 1990s, I collaborated with the Russian playboy magazine, which was published in Moscow. I had a contract for six months with them, I had to write columns. Then I was convinced that this topic is very short, it ends quickly. I devoted the last column to Japanese medieval prose, however, female. And this ended with our relationship with this magazine, because the editor was kicked out, and the publisher seems to be killed. It was such a dramatic story. So the “playboy” walked through my life, but not for long.

Solomon Volkov: As I understand it, it does not exist in Russia anymore. Tell me, were there any attempts in Russia to publish some kind of analogue of New Yorker?

Alexander Genis: I know about one magazine, even printed in it, which was made exactly according to the New Yorker layout, several numbers came out. They wanted to pay decent money to the authors, I did not feel decent money, but I learned something. But Losev, unfortunately, is not, although they printed a lot of his poems there, they decided to decorate the whole number with Losev’s poems, but he never received a penny, the magazine closed. I talked with David belt, the editor of the Newyorker, on this subject, he said that he was very upset that they borrowed a very characteristic design of the Newyorker without demand.

But here we have already moved to another character, namely to Newhaus, which is worth talking separately about.

Sai Newhaus

Solomon Volkov: So - Newhouse. Just as New Yorker and Playboy are two polar, opposite magazines, as well as the individuals of these two publishers of these magazines also polar opposite. As far as Hefner preferred to always be under the light of Jupiters, from his life he made one big erotic adventure. Moreover, as always in such cases, his reputation as a cool man, whom he promoted, was somewhat exaggerated. For example, it was believed that every woman who was dedicated to the famous photo shoot in each number of Playboy was supposed to go through the bed of Hefner. What I doubt. The Newhaus, on the contrary, lived a very closed life, gave an interview extremely rarely. Hefner made the magazine himself and himself achieved this grandiose success, Newhouse received his magazine in the inheritance from his father.

Alexander Genis: Russian Jew, by the way.

Solomon Volkov: About whom they tell a story, I always considered it a joke, then I read that everything was so. The joke sounded like this: the wife of the elder Newhaus told him: “Can you buy me the VOG magazine?” He said: "I will buy." I went out into the street and bought not the issue of the magazine, but the whole magazine for the root. It turned out that he acquired the rights to the publication of the Vog magazine as a gift for the 35th anniversary of the wedding for his wife. So, you see, a joke close to life.

The idea of the editorial policy of Newhaus, again, in the contrast to the Hefner, which intervened in every detail that is being done in Playboy, and really controlled each issue, and Newhaus believed that it was necessary to take a talented, energetic and smart editor and provide him with an unlimited amount of money, and then everything would go as it should. It reminds me in this sense, with the exception of, of course, the financial part, our late head of Radio Liberty Yuri Gendler.

Alexander Genis: Very true. Gendler always asked us: who will the New York Times be hired-Dostoevsky or a good manager? We all shouted: of course, Dostoevsky, he will lead his “writer's diary” in the “New York Times”. He says: “Nothing of the kind, you need to take a good manager who will find Dostoevsky’s newspaper.”

Solomon Volkov: This was the philosophy of Newhaus, one to one.

Alexander Genis: Remembering Newhaus, I always think: Lord, where are these publishers in Russia? He understood the main thing: the magazine is the authors. It would seem that such an unpretentious thought, but nothing like this happens in Russia. The first thing he did was to raise fees, raised salaries. Newkhaz believed that it was necessary to invest in money and wait until it brings the results. He was sometimes waiting for years, losing money. But thanks to this tactics, his magazines became an era. After all, he published a lot of magazines, and Vog, Vanity Fair - and this is one of the most interesting magazines in America.

Solomon Volkov: By the way, many of these magazines still have Russian versions, published in Russia.

Alexander Genis: All this is so, but in Russian magazines they do not pay such fees. I can never understand why. The circulation of New Yorker is 250 thousand copies - this is not such a large circulation, and nevertheless, the fees were very significant. I remember that Dovlatov received as much as Dovlatov as I received in a year, working in the Russian press. Rare is expensive, you have to pay for it. The Newhaus was an extremely generous publisher.

Solomon Volkov: Everything was paid - first -class tickets, luxurious dinners, clothes for editors for tens of thousands of dollars. I suspect, of course, that Newhaus was given a substantial discount, given the weight of the advertising.

Alexander Genis: He believed that editor editors should be stars. It was that they became. Of course, today, when the entire coffee business is in a crisis, this time is recalled as the Golden Age of magazines.

Solomon Volkov: He did not intervene in the release of each specific number, he trusted the man whom he took to the editorial leaders of the entire network of his magazines - Alexander Lieberman, the husband of the legendary Tatyana Yakovleva, about whom everyone knows that she was a great love of Mayakovsky. And Lieberman already carried out his idea - to blur the border between the content and advertising, that is, one was supposed to flow into another. Advertising was to be perceived as part of the magazine and to be the same engine of trade, which made it possible to be profitable.

Alexander Genis: “VOG” was a fashion magazine, but nevertheless, Brodsky was printed there.

Solomon Volkov: This is the merit of Lieberman.

Alexander Genis: In the magazine Vog was printed an essay about Virgil, for example. And there is a good old tradition in this, because the first article of the young Vissarion Grigoryevich Belinsky “Literary Dreams” was printed in the “Fashion Journal and Literature”. Such a “magazine of fashion and literature” became “VOG” in its golden time.

(Music)

Alexander Genis: Solomon, what's on your book shelf?

Solomon Volkov: I would like to pay attention, a new wonderful biography of Mikhail Gorbachev appeared, the author of which is William Taubman. William Taubman does not need to represent him, because the Russian reader knows him, he wrote the definitive biography of Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev.

Кстати, я употребляю все время слова «дефинитивная биография». Это - исчерпывающая биография на данный момент. Потому что исчерпывающая биография, которая бы завершила, тем. Знаете, знаменитое: написал стихотворение о любви, закрыл тему. Нельзя закрыть тему ни о ком, нельзя написать окончательную биографию ни Ивана Грозного, ни Наполеона, никого.

Александр Генис: Можно написать для каждого поколения такую биографию. Рецензент новой биографии Горбачева Питер Бейкер, который был главой бюро «Нью-Йорк Таймс» в Москве, хорошо знает эту тему, сказал, что как раз так: новая биография Горбачева и есть та самая дефинитивная биография, которая останется для нашего поколения. Он говорит: было немало книг о Горбачеве, но они все были слишком беглые, и написаны они были давно. Сейчас эта книга о Горбачеве должна раскрыть личность Горбачева во всем ее объеме. Таубман сумел нарисовать портрет очень сложного человека. Это было особенно непросто, потому что, как мы знаем, в России Горбачева сейчас просто ненавидят, а в Америке, на Западе к Горбачеву всегда относились хорошо и сейчас относятся хорошо. Мы с вами еще помним горбоманию, когда Горбачев приезжал в Америку, и все боялись, что он обманет американцев, потому что он такой тут популярный.

Соломон Волков: Эта одна из больших загадок того времени. Вспомним русские бестселлеры в списке «Нью-Йорк Таймс», который является тоже дефинитивным. В нем когда-то была «Лолита», когда-то был «Доктор Живаго», потом с большим перерывом первый том «Архипелага ГУЛАГ», а потом вдруг книга Горбачева о перестройке, она стала бестселлером здесь в Америке, в Нью-Йорке.

Александр Генис: Дело даже не в том, читали ли эту книгу, дело в том, что ее покупали, потому что эта книга была словно эйфорическая весть о том, что «холодная война» может закончиться, что в Кремль пришел человек, который готов это совершить.

Что бы ни говорили о Горбачеве, а о нем говорят только плохое, я не дам его в обиду. Потому что Горбачев, несмотря на гигантские ошибки, несмотря на кровь, пролитуюв том числе и из-за него, Горбачев сделал очень много для Европы: он позволил Европе срастись. Из-за Горбачева исчезло географическое понятие “Восточная Европа”, есть Западная Европа, есть Центральная Европа, есть Северная Европа, есть Южная Европа, есть средиземноморская Европа, дальше начинается Западная Азия, а вот Восточная Европа исчезла, она превратилась в часть общей Европы. И это - гигантское достижение. Я недавно был в Берлине, разговаривали об этом, мне сказали: вы знаете, мы Горбачеву этого никогда не забудем, при Путине такого бы не было. То, что он без войны отдал Европу — это, конечно, чрезвычайно много. Об этом пишет и в «Нью-Йорк Таймс», оценивая книгу, они говорят о том, что Таубман нарисовал человека, который хотел сделать больше, чем это было возможно. Потому что он имел дело с другим материалом. Россия не приспособлена была к той свободе, которая ей досталась. В результате мы получили путинский режим. Но виноват ли в это Горбачев — непонятно.

Соломон Волков: Когда заходит разговор о Горбачеве, я вспоминаю два отзыва, двух совсем разных человек, которые не сговариваясь. Один был Сергей Параджанов, кинорежиссер, который в Нью-Йорке, он выступал на Нью-Йоркском кинофестивале, из зала ему задали вопрос о Горбачеве. Он сказал, что хотел бы снять «Гамлета» с Горбачевым в роли Гамлета. Я тогда поразился, представив себе Горбачева в гамлетовских бриджах и декламирующего «быть или не быть». Но потом в Нью-Йорке в Колумбийском университете перед лекцией Александра Яковлева, человек, которого мы знаем и из этой биографии Таубмана и знали, конечно, и до того, оказал огромное влияние на мышление Горбачева, на его движение к идее перестройки, я спросил у Яковлева, как бы он охарактеризовал одним словом личность Горбачева. Do you know what he answered me? Гамлетизм! И тоже, не задумываясь. То есть эти два человека оба, не сговариваясь, каждому по-своему нельзя отказать, Параджанову в артистической интуиции, а Яковлеву в политической и знании великолепном этого человека, они оба восприняли его как Гамлета, как человека, который все время колебался, никак не мог приступить к решительным действиям, осуществить то, что он, вероятно, планировал осуществить.

Насчет того, что он планировал, до сих пор, даже с биографией Таубмана, все равно масса неясностей. Потому что Таубман цитирует этот знаменитый разговор Горбачева с его женой Раисой Максимовной, когда Горбачев произнес эту историческую фразу: «Так жить нельзя». Насколько эта фраза действительно была произнесена, насколько это апокриф, насколько это реальность, насколько это придумано может быть или вытащено из недр памяти задним числом, мы уже судить не можем. Это уже при живом даже Михаиле Сергеевиче покрыто туманом неизвестности, включая и такой важнейший эпизод, согласитесь, не знаю, вы со мной или нет, как история с путчем. До сих пор громадный вопросительный знак, как мне представляется, висит над тем, знал Горбачев о том, что такой путч состоится и почему к нему ездили в Форос руководители путча, о чем там говорилось.

Александр Генис: Я думаю, мы это еще нескоро узнаем. Потому что в книге Таубмана тоже нет ответа на этот вопрос. Но есть выводы, которые стоит привести. Потому что сегодня, когда говорят о том, что Горбачев профукал империю, все забывают о том, что империю профукал не Горбачев, а все его предшественники. Распад Советского Союза был результатом чудовищной внутренней политики и безумной внешней политики. Афганистан, экономика — это было до Горбачева, и это было то, что привело к падению Советского Союза. Поэтому Таубман изображает Горбачева исключением. Главный его вывод заключается в том, что если Путин продолжает линию советских вождей, ничего в сущности нового он не предлагает, то Горбачев был исключением из этой череды, и именно это делает его столь важным в русской истории.

(Music)