Echo words

On November 1, writer Vladimir Makanin died in his house in the village of Krasny near Rostov-on-Don. He was 80 years old. Among his most famous books are “Voices”, “Citizen running away”, “Klyucharev and Alimushkin”, “Antilider”, “Laz”, “Andegrand, or the hero of our time”, “Caucasian prisoner”, “Asan”, “Two sisters and Kandinsky”. Makanin was a laureate of the "Russian Boker", in 1999 he received the state of Russia in the field of literature and art for the same year, and in 2012-the European Prize in Literature.

This interview Vladimir Makanin gave Radio Liberty in 1997.

- Vladimir Semenovich, what does Soviet literature mean to you ?

My growth, not even as a writer, but simply as a person, consisted in overcoming the dogmas of Soviet literature

- Soviet literature is for me a certain bridge that connects me with Russian classics. This is not an evaluative characteristic, I am not saying whether it is good or bad, I'm talking about some existentiality. Because I grew up and received basics, in particular, from my mother - she is a teacher of literature at school - through the names of Soviet literature. Although my mother in ancient times slipped Bunin to me when they had not yet been read, and other unique things from the point of view of the Soviet look, especially in the Urals. But in fact, this bridge, which I had to go to Russian classical literature , was that special kind of artificial humanism, which was approved in Soviet literature, in particular, in the Soviet school that I passed. But, from some point in development, Soviet literature was a kind of antagonist. Overcoming children's or youth dogmas was one of the important parts of my life, my internal development. My height, not even as a writer, but simply as a person, consisted in overcoming the dogmas of Soviet literature, which indicates precisely that it was a bridge, that is, the bridge was once crossed.

- What does post -Soviet literature mean to you, how would you determine it?

- Since Soviet literature has ended, and even earlier, I had a certain inner feeling of literature as a certain word that is given to people, which exists in itself, with which the writer is in a certain respect. The peculiarity of Russian literature, which, it seems to me, consists in the fact that Russia develops unevenly, that the process is twitching, uneven, sometimes long stagnation, sometimes some kind of ahead of everyone and everything. This torn rhythm of history affects the writer, giving a certain meaning to everything that the writer says and writes. In particular, it is the feeling of close fragments, cataclysms, the bumps of existence, in my opinion, that gives the quality of literature, which is called professional, prophetic, because it is simply the need for the writer to plunge not just during which he lives, but in the near future a fracture, but partly, maybe in the previous break. And this flirting with time is compulsory, essential, it makes up the rut or the main direction that the Russian Russian writer never speaks in a word just like that, he always in this sense falls into a certain tense field, it doesn’t matter if he feels himself a prophet or, on the contrary, he does not believe in a professional at all. Nevertheless, this word remains with him, and it sounds taking into account these breaks. Hence him and an echo, sound. Because these forebodings, they are not a plot, is not something - it includes the emotional fabric of the word itself, they make up a certain excited aura, which contemporaries, of course, feel.

- From this point of view, our post -Soviet literature can tell the world that it can say that what the world has not heard yet?

- First of all, paradoxically, this is the meaning of the personality, the meaning of an individual. Because it is given in Russia with difficulty, it is given with stress, this is given by contact with all reality, that which is not in Europe is not in America, as I understand it. This is the conjugation of a person, a writer’s personality with a word and at the same time with time can give unique fruits from the point of view of the hero that the writer writes about, and from the point of view of the writer himself as a person. Because such figures as Solzhenitsyn and Brodsky, I just take the very first ones that are called on the surface, it is the era, although it is the pre -war era, but it is tied to the same, that is, they arose in the Soviet era, they are tied with the same foreboding, an incredible sensation of the personality in the empire, say, Brodsky is completely amazing, this is permeated with all creativity. Of course, the fuse and the enormous power of Solzhenitsyn and the brave challenge, abandoned by him , is what I call the tied of a writer's personality with time. And this did not stop in Russia. In essence, there are no changes, the same problems and the expectation of the same wealth of the personality that can manifest, as they say, rarely, but aptly. This can both Europe and America, in my opinion, is very bright.

- What did the main Russian literature say in the 19th century and in the 20th century?

Russian literature on each topic gave a very specific answer to the author of the author

- I think that the main thing in this case is not determined either through the topic or through individual successful works. It seems to me that what I answered in the previous question - this is the main thing. Russian literature on each topic gave a very specific answer to the author of the author. I'll just explain that it is not too abstract. For example, there was such a discussion "writer and power", in our country this is especially emphasized. Here they said some - we must behave like that, then behave like that, the others said - so lead. And behind all this it shown that the solution to this problem is always individual. Dostoevsky - this is one solution to the problem of "writer and power", Pushkin is another solution to the problem, Solzhenitsyn is a third and so on. This is the wealth that Russian literature gives both in the XIX and in the twentieth century, this is one general quality associated with the power of an expression of a person, which is very often in extreme conditions of both personal and historical. In my opinion, both the XIX and the twentieth century gave the same, of course, of course, the intensity. What to say there, Dostoevsky was studied more and honor much more than Platonov or Bulgakov, but this is already a degree of intensity, this, as they say, hesitates, maybe yes, or maybe not. But the essence is this.

-What are two or three names of the main ones for you in the twentieth century in Russian literature, which accompanied you in your literary practice that are close to you, which are interlocutors every day? Who was the main person in the twentieth century for you?

- I don’t have one. As I already answered somewhere that I did not inherit. I had such an essay, the “plot of averaging” was called where literature was considered the XIX and twentieth century as one mountain with a rise and a decline. But this is a figurative representation, for me the whole ridge is important, the whole mountain. I cannot prefer Dostoevsky even Lermontov. Say, Mandelstam, I cannot prefer Khlebnikov unconditionally, they both act for me, and their finals, their fate. It would seem that they are so different, in fact they are so Russians, they are so qualitatively carried in their fate, the phenomenon of the personality that I spoke about, which is actually shocking the world, in addition to the works themselves. The happiness of the Russian writer is that he not only gives books, but also that he is still an occasion to just think about people, in itself a reason to look well what we are.

- How do you evaluate your creative evolution?

- I'm talking about the image of a tree that can be a model for the development of a writer. The tree at the time of growth, reaching a certain peak, height, begins to throw branches, comes a moment when the branches become crowded. A tree can throw five, six, and large branches in different directions. And then there comes a rather alarming and crucial moment for the tree, let’s say, it should stop throwing off the branches, because they already begin to brew, thicken, interfere with each other, and with some tension to raise the barrel even higher to some level, after which it becomes possible to throw a new tier of branches, another five or six branches. Then again there is a pause, silence, the so -called painful growth process. And this is the most difficult. It is not cunning and not so difficult with a certain presence of a gift for the word to write a story, and it is not so difficult to write them a few. The work consists precisely in the fact that when these novels fill a certain tier, work begins here - it is to throw away the barrel above. Moreover, there is not a single twig - it is absolutely naked growth, the internal spiritual growth of the writer. And it is the largest problem, because this determines not only the future even height and significance, but this also determines the potency to these branches. Because it is the rise that makes it possible to throw new branches, make a new expression in a word, not repeated and independent.

- What tiers were in your life?

The writer in our time is formed not on a word and not on books in childhood, but on a movie

- Speaking of me, I started with prose, which can be called a film industry, so everyone starts. Because in fact, the writer in our time is formed not on a word and not on books in childhood, but is formed on the cinema, the visual series brings him up aesthetically. The writer, not really noticing, - the first things of any writer, they are usually visual - there is thinking of scenes. That was the first tier. Then I have a rather painful moment when a return to the word occurred, but it was not so reliable and was not so confident, nevertheless, when the story “Voices” arose, contact began with the word directly. I suddenly realized that in addition to the novels there is still past literature, Rabelais, anyone, Greeks, a word that has not yet known about its visual equivalent. After all, the word arose after cave drawings, after acting and a primitive theater, the word arose at a certain stage, and it is richer. In this sense, a return occurred-it was a second tier, although it was short and not very pronounced: the story “Voices”, there were still two or three things small, one was large, which I did not publish because I was so delighted with this state that I did not even have the opportunity to rule it. Then there was a period of the most appreciated among readers-this is the period of my two-three-listous things, when I already understood that we were talking about overcoming the cinema, and when the visual series was in powerfully subjected to such an extent that the commentary overpowered the fine side. This period was quite long, fruitful, it is “Otdushin”, “Klyucharev and Alimushkin”, “Antilider”. This period did not stop, in particular, the Laz, although it has already gained somewhat different freedom, but still this tier gave me really great confidence and great freedom of expression. I know that at any moment when it is difficult for me, I can sit like a piano and play one of such things. It doesn’t matter, it will be one or the other, it will always be successful. This is a genre that is quite beloved by me, it is not exhausted. Then came the period of such an approach to the novel - it was “one and one”, “forerunner”, such things are quite large. They were not perfect, the fetus was not too bright, not too tasty, but it was a stage, a tier that now led to the novel that I finish. There was one more tier of the essay, I just miss him. The picture is quite understandable. It is important that every time after some period I needed a large spiritual tension, I did not write anything and painfully understood that I should not write. If I don't want to pretend. This is a tree model, it, like any model, of course, simplifies, but gives something.

- How would you determine the fate of the personality in the era of mass society? This is a big topic for your compositions, right?

Only dying, at some point a person understands his meaning

- Yes. In my opinion, the personality experiences two known directions. On the one hand, unconditional and most importantly, in my opinion, is that identification of the personality, it must realize itself. This is connected, in any case, I, with a biological end, with death. It is only dying, at some point a person understands his meaning. Perhaps this is the main thing.