Dmitry Bykov tells what the difference between the Russian Federation and Babylon, why he wrote a letter to Biden and what is in common with Navalny with ancient heroes

Vladimir Eremin: Dmitry Lvovich, in one of the last articles of the Interlocutor publication, you write that the boring genre of anti -utopia has died, since it has already become unthinkable to rebirth this reality, hinting that life in modern Russia has turned into anti -utopia so.

Dmitry Bykov: Do not reborn, repact. It is possible to reborn, reproduce - no.

Vladimir Eremin: What features distinguish our anti -utopia from classical analogues like Romanes Zamyatin, Orwell and Haxley?

Dmitry Bykov: I would say the lack of ideology. This is the main problem, which no one was absolutely pre -taught: that anti -utopia is actually possible without totalitarianism, with open borders, without an explanatory teaching, without the police of customs or, rather, with Roskomnadzor in its role.

The dictatorship presses people not on the principle of disagreement. And to understand this principle is very difficult. Or according to the principle of activity - the ability to self -organize. Even if it will be an organization for painting garden benches. This is already suspicious.

The second sign is empathy, compassion, that is, the willingness to somehow help the neighbor and build horizontal ties among the triumph of the vertical. Such ties do not like such connections.

The third sign on which they are given is a connection with abroad. Some kind of openness to the world, which is suspicious. We have never lived in a country where contact with a foreigner is already suspicious. That is, the possibility of dictatorship without ideology is something fundamentally new.

Vladimir Eremin: In your novel, we are talking about the life of aircraft designers and pilots in the Stalin USSR. We can say that concluding an agreement with the devil, in the role of which is, for example, not Woland, like Bulgakov’s, but a totalitarian system in the person of Mephistopheles, that thanks to this agreement, these people managed to put incredible records, overcome physical and metaphysical limits. That is, we can say that this is a transformation of Faust's history to the realities of the 20th century. And if you try to shift this story to the XXI century, then the modern Faust - what is it?

Dmitry Bykov: He is not. Galina Yakusheva, our main faustologist, wrote a book about the tired Faust. The fact that Faust is more irrelevant. This story ended in the 20th century. Its result was summed up by Thomas Mann’s novel “Doctor Faustus”.

The myth of Faust was fundamental for the 20th century. He was, as it were, in the depths of events, and came to the surface in only three works: Pasternak in the “Dr. Zhivago”, with Sholokhov in “Quiet Don” and, as it seems to me, with Nabokov in “Lolita”. I had a big article in the New Article about the key nodes of the Russian revolutionary metasyushta. It always begins with an incest, that is, corruption from the authorities, continues the emergence of a woman from prison and its death. That is, adultery brings death to the country, which manifests itself in texts in the form of the birth of a dead child, that is, an unborn society. If you notice, in all these novels a dead child is present or miraculously survived - like the daughter of Yura and Lara. But the 20th century exhausted this myth, there was no return to it.

Humanity generally tells two stories about itself: the history of the tricster (wandering rogue-wizard) is Odyssey, Socrates, Christ, Ulenspigel, Harry Potter, and the second is the story of Faust: the story of a professional scientist who has such a ambiguous, miserable patron in the person of Mephistopheles.

Actually, Mephistopheles and Woland have two functions: patronage to the master and intelligence. Remember, as Woland said, "the apartment question only ruined them." He came to Moscow to see and report. And here is the further evolution of the scout - it is very curious. He turns into a Don Rumato Estorsky, who patronizes the spirit of Kabani and Stirlitz, who patronizes the player and pastor to the barrier. This story led to the election of Putin. Because the scout began to be perceived as the Savior of the Fatherland. After the country was disappointed in Putin, this myth ended. The myth of the scout-patron, the myth of Faust, the myth of Beria, because Beria is the same patron saint of all these Fausts sitting on Soviet sharashki. In Beria there are all the features of Woland: he is ironic, he is loving, he is charming in his own way, he is, of course, a reliable patron. That is, to conclude a contract with him is a sweet thing. He does not give his own. And besides, he - in general - helps in everything. It gives omnipotence. Do we need foreign sources? For God's sake. Do you need to go to Germany to study the FAU after the defeat of the Germans? Please. He is a rather reliable patron. The only problem is that this is a patron leading to the abyss. Therefore, the Faustian plot in the 20th century ended. The last nail in his coffin was received by the film Sokurov, in which, however, the main center of gravity was not transferred to Mephistopheles, but on Faust himself - the scientist was made the main evil. He is nothing more than such a timid servant.

And the Faustian myth was replaced by the myth of diversification. I am now writing about this the following novel: that instead of one personality, a person is found multiple,

How all this will develop. This is such a love story when there are several personalities in the boy. One of them is a terrorist girl, he is in love with her, she begins to pursue her in every way, and he saves her. While it is called Banny & Clyde by analogy with Bonnie and Clide. I have the main problem there, how to link the theoretical part of the novel with its intrigue, because the theoretical part for a very long time and tediously explains why the multiple personality disorder has become the main diagnosis of the 21st century. Why did a person of a monolithic personality turn to such a gap? I know why this happened, but telling it - two hundred on the pages. How to link it with intrigue?

The whole XX century, and XXI certainly, passes under the sign of this plot. Under the sign of the cartoon "Puzzle", when in one person - five. Or the film "Identification". This is also manifested for me: I am a father - this is one, I am a writer - this is another, I am a teacher - the third, and I am a journalist is a very separate person. The point is that each personality, every lesson requires more and more professionalism. Therefore, all personalities come from each other, and then they diverge. If earlier a person could simultaneously know physics and humanities, now he must go deeper to such an extent that only his specializations live. This is a difficult problem, therefore, apparently, diversification is the main challenge of the 21st century.

Sergey Lebedenko: They usually say that depression is the main disease of the 21st century.

Dmitry Bykov: What caused the depression? I, you know, not just spend a lot of time in the USA now. Here is the book of Terry Cheney Maniac - this is the story of depression that developed in a woman. Precisely because her different personalities have not been in contact for a long time. What did we think before? That there is a bipolar. What we have, relatively speaking, the manic part and that there is depressive. Now it is quite obvious: depression caused by coordination, discoordination is the dissociation of these personalities. I am afraid that most world leaders have the same problem. Why, for example, Putin’s bad mood is clearly visible? Because at one meeting he would like to be a father, and at the other - a punisher, but he had these hypostases - like Jekella and Hyde - begin to crowd out each other. You remember why Jekyle in Stevenson’s novel, in fact, died: because Hyde began to crawl into an uncontrolled.

Sergey Lebedenko: Let's take off a little bit back-to Soviet history. You have such an idea in the novel that Soviet society was ideological. But it turned out that 90% of the population work by 10% of a certain intellectual elite: scientists, designers, pilots, military and so on. Now our proportion has changed. That is, now 99% work by 1%, or how does it work?

Dmitry Bykov: Now we have 100% work for manure.

I do not know a project that would justify the existence of present -day Russia. The protection of borders, sovereignty can not be a project.

Sovereignty-he is for something. The Soviet Union manifested the new type of state. Well, let's call this a proletarian state. But what type does Russia manifest? ..

Here, see what a thing. This is not my invention. The Vachovsky sisters in the "Matrix" depicted the same thing. The same situation when, relatively speaking, 10% of people are like architects that control the machine, matrix agents, and 90% of people who consume virtual reality and serve as batteries. Fritz Lang has a 10% elite in Metropolis, and the remaining 90% underground. This is probably a device of any society. Unfortunately, the only problem is that if Zion wins (a supporting point of the uprising against cars in the “matrix” - approx. “New”), it will quickly install the same thing. It is very bitter to talk about this, but no matter how radical the Russian revolution was, it also led very quickly to the creation of a society, where 10% are an elite - spiritually, intellectually, financially. And 90% are in complete lawlessness. I have not seen another structure of society. Maybe in the States it is different, but the American left claim that everything is exactly the same there, and Zizhek, for example, said that there was even worse. Only there, as it were, the whole China, for example, is all Latin America. Unfortunately, the division of society into an elite and slaves, I am afraid, is ineradicable. Another thing is how to deal with this. Enlightenment does not cope.

Vladimir Eremin: You have an interesting line of the Volchak character in the novel, Chkalov, of course, became his prototype. After a series of records in the field of aviation, he tries to become a politician of the highest echelon. And after he does not succeed, he is tragically dies. And in this regard, the question: to what extent can the hero change the system from the inside? Or is it not subject to him?

Dmitry Bykov: The hero must die. The hero is a hostage, this is the whole tragedy. The wolf had a chance, of course, was. But imagine the situation in which Stalin makes Chkalov as he wanted, the Minister of the Interior. This would be a much more tragic situation, because he would either have to part with all his ambitions of the hero and to a certain extent to betray this function - to become a cog in a punitive machine, or he would be doomed to get into contradictions from this machine. Because it is unlikely that Chkalov, with all his suspicion, could become the head of the defeat of the whole industry. Chkalov could not sincerely believe that Korolev was a spy. Therefore, sooner or later he would be doomed to enter into contradictions either with himself or with the system, and his death would be inevitable. In general, saving from death manages to only Grinevitsky in the novel, which flies away from unknown. He flies away - and they did not find traces. By the way, his prototype, in fact, Levanevsky, he flew away - it is not clear where. Because the hero has one option: to dissolve in this polar light, otherwise he will betray either his own or himself.

Sergey Lebedenko: You have such an idea in the novel that the person’s strength is measured by the number of people who can stop him. In this sense, a paradox is obtained, because no one could stop Stalin.

Dmitry Bykov: I had detailed conversations with Sergey Nikitich Khrushchev, who studied the subject, just being quite close. He assures that Stalin was not able to poison. It was impossible to do this. He was protected at too many levels. Beria would not have managed one. But I want to think that he was poisoned. Because otherwise it turns out that only death can stop such a person. I would like to believe that people are not ready to endure. I really want to think that someone stopped Stalin, because it should not be stopped to think-this means not to respect human nature.

Sergey Lebedenko: Why then are so many people return to Stalin now? They want to see a certain figure at the head of state, which cannot be stopped?

Dmitry Bykov: This is pure aesthetics. Stalin is an aesthetically whole person.

As Pasternak said: it is natural to strive for cleanliness. Khrushchev is an intermediate figure. Brezhnev is completely clay. And Stalin is still a steel monolithic evil.

And therefore, hundreds of books are published about him all over the world, which essentially do not add anything to the appearance, but it is clear that the author, while he wrote, was dragging.

Vladimir Eremin: Continuing the theme of heroes about which there are many reasoning in your novel. You have repeatedly called the hero of Alexei Navalny. How does he look like the ancient heroes described by you?

Dmitry Bykov: Absolute hostage of the role. You see, all the conversations that "Navalny returned in vain, he would have brought more benefit abroad." I would bring, but it would not be bulk. Navalny is in the hero’s niche. In this capacity, he made the last bet: either pan, or disappeared. There is still an interesting third option: the missing pan. That is, relatively speaking, the hero is doomed. I do not know if in this situation he has a chance to save life and health. I want to believe that yes, but he just illustrates that the hero is a slave of his role. The hero does not have the opportunity to survive. There is a concept of fatum, the concept of rock. Where the hero is - there is Fatum.

Sergey Lebedenko: You have such a parallel that the Soviet Union built the Babylonian tower. Our Tower today is closer to the Soviet or American?

Dmitry Bykov: There is no tower today in Russia. Babylon is a city that, with all its debauchery, with the harlot of the Babylonian and monstrous cruelty. He differs one: he builds a tower. Because no one needs a tower except him. Kondratyev in my novel says: a good thing is a tower, but not for you, the city of Babylon, to build it. Therefore, unfortunately, the Babylonian tower is doomed. This is one of the tragic paradoxes of world history that, except Babylon, there is no one to build a tower. But if he is building it, then this tower acquires the features of the military-industrial complex, no matter how sad it is. And in the end - collapses under his own weight.

FUN FACTS

Vladimir Eremin: In this section, we voiced interesting facts about the life of Dmitry Bykov. Dmitry Bykov wrote a letter to Joe Biden. This letter was published in the publication "Interlocutor" and begins with the words "Dear Mr. Biden, or simply Joe. I know that you do not start a working day on Tuesdays without looking at the breakfast of a fresh “interlocutor”, and in a letter you, as it were, ironically, advise Biden in communication with Russia to use the language of love, not the language of power.

Dmitry Bykov: To lick Russia with a language of love.

Vladimir Eremin: Talking with Russia the language of power, nothing can be achieved. How do foreign leaders behave with people like Putin or Lukashenko? Is it possible to seriously speak with Putin's language of love?

Dmitry Bykov: Russia is a very reliable friend. This is generally a distinctive feature of all the Mephistopheles, I talked about it. They sign a contract with you. The contract on your part is signed by blood. You pay your soul. This is a solid currency. But Mephistopheles - although he, of course, is a great deceiver at the very end - throughout his life he will patronize you very stubbornly. In the end, Hitler signed this agreement, and until some point everything went well with him. At the end there is always a disaster, this is true. But, if you sign some kind of contract with any devil, you can count on absolute reliability on his part. This devil does not pass his own.

And Russia is the same reliable partner. You will have the best gas at the best price, you will be given money, as Lukashenko is given. Therefore, by the way, all representatives of the Soviet elite were dying of their death, and all the executioners died unexpressed. In general, I think that of today's friends and partners, Putin is the only one by and large, which, without listening to any conjuncture, will support his own until the last. The same Lukashenko. Or Gaddafi: tried, but not lucky. And now he is trying to support Assad.

I think that if you lick Russia with the language of love, you can get a lot of it from it. She is ready for the slightest manifestation of sympathy just in a cake.

Sergey Lebedenko: Another fact: Dmitry Bykov twice refused to meet with Vladimir Putin. The first time, according to Gazeta.ru, it was in 2009, when the prime minister wanted to meet with Russian writers. Then you, Prilepin and Lyudmila Ulitskaya, refused the meeting. The second time was in the 11th year, when the prime minister had a meeting in Penza with cultural figures. The question is: did your attitude to Putin have changed for these 10 years?

Dmitry Bykov: I'm tired of saying that both times the meetings fell off through my fault. Once she was transferred to his birthday. I cannot tell a person unpleasant things on my birthday. Assign any other day. Here is my birthday day after tomorrow. I understand very well that you are preparing. Some gifts, slices. And then the writer comes and begins to be rude. Give any other day. And when it was in Penza, I was generally in Voronezh at that moment and performed there.

My attitude has changed in one sense. I always think that he passes some kind of fork. That a turn for the better is possible. But now I have been convinced that he heroically and consistently always makes a choice in favor of the death of the project. This causes deep compassion. Можно было свернуть с колеи в 11-м году, можно было в 14-м свернуть. Может быть, наверное, еще можно было 17-м пересмотреть. No. Стабильно, забивая гвозди в крышку. Поэтому уважаю, но не сочувствую. Потому что это и моя крышка в том числе.

Владимир Еремин: Дмитрий Быков состоял в координационном совете оппозиции в 2012 году во время массовых протестов против фальсификации выборов. Вы тогда входили в совет в составе общегражданского списка вместе с Алексеем Навальным, Борисом Немцовым и другими оппозиционерами. В статье для того же «Собеседника» вы пишете, что оптимистические прогнозы тех лет не сбылись, но они тогда давались исходя из презумпции здравого смысла.

Дмитрий Быков: Совершенно верно. Власть не заинтересована в диалоге с оппозицией.

Владимир Еремин: И вот 10 лет спустя, как вы считаете, какие уроки обществу нужно извлечь из истории тех протестов?

Dmitry Bykov:

Для деятелей культуры урок один: не входить ни в какие организационные структуры, потому что разговора с вами не будет, а все возможности работы вы себе обрубите.

Для общества я не знаю, какой нужно дать совет. Любой совет, который я могу дать, будет немедленно истолкован как экстремизм. Поэтому лучше всего не давать советов. Я думаю, что общество без меня уже все поняло. Судя по настроениям, которые я вижу сейчас, оно уже в мирный протест абсолютно не верит. Кто не верит в мирный протест, тот получает другие формы протеста. Я никого не пугаю. История показывает, что если не дают протест в мирной форме, то он накапливается, как метан. Я совершенно не хочу здесь социального взрыва, но если все, кроме социального взрыва, заблокировано, то что обществу остается делать?

Сергей Лебеденко: Смотрите, но тем не менее вы в колонке для «Собеседника» писали, что, несмотря на то, что все очень плохо, через год все станет лучше и перспективнее.

Дмитрий Быков: Есть такое ощущение. Люди устали от плохих новостей. У нас сейчас два типа новостей: столько-то умерло и стольких-то посадили. Я думаю, что вечно жить в этом нельзя, но хочется чего-то поменять.

Владимир Еремин: Вы неоднократно говорили, что напишете роман о советских диссидентах. В каком жанре вам видится такой сюжет?

Дмитрий Быков: Я долго очень носился с идеей сериала о диссидентах 70-х годов, потому что это безумно интересно: конспирация, провокация и некоторый эротизм. В общем, диссидентская среда мне была понятна. Долго я носился с этой идеей, пока она не заинтересовала продюсеров. По крайней мере, сценарий большого сериала о диссидентах мне придется написать, а возможно, я сделаю из него роман. Правда, это уже не совсем советская история. Это советское вырождение проекта, которое уже протянется непосредственно в 1990-е годы. Это жутко напряженная была жизнь, жутко интересная. Удивительное сочетание тщеславия, бескомпромиссности, глупости, жертвенности, героизма, удивительных биографий.

Я этот сериал делаю не один, у меня есть очень авторитетный и серьезный соавтор, которого я осветить не уполномочен. Если это получится, это будет хорошая книга и фильм. Проблема в том, что там композиция очень сложная, не сериальная — слишком много флешбэков и флешфорвардов. Но если они пойдут на нарушение канона, то будет интересно. Все удачи в сериалах — нарушения канонов: «Во все тяжкие», «Твин Пикс», «Черное зеркало» сделано поперек правил. Я придумал это нарушение канонов. Я надеюсь, что это будет очень интересно.

«Поясни за»

Владимир Еремин: В этой рубрике мы задаем вопросы, которые прислали наши слушатели. Первый вопрос такой: согласны ли вы с мнением, что жизнь можно познать через литературу, не набивая себе шишки?

Дмитрий Быков: Да, собственно, литература для этого и существует. Я не могу вас призывать к страданиям, а литература существует для того, чтобы вы могли, лично не страдая, воспользоваться чужим опытом. Вот интересная штука, мы много раз разговаривали с Айтматовым. Я у него брал интервью после выхода последнего романа. Я сказал ему: «У меня проблемы, я не знаю, как воспитывать своих детей, чему их учить». Он ответил, что вы можете дать ребенку несколько мыслей за долгую жизнь. Я убедился, что безотносительно верны только две: старайся не лгать и почитай родителей. Все остальное спорно. Чем больше живу, тем лучше понимаю, что старый киргиз был гением.

Сергей Лебеденко: Последний вопрос от слушателей: «Будет ли война с Украиной?»

Дмитрий Быков: Война идет. Не надо обольщаться. Закончится ли она переходом в горячую фазу? Don't know. Такие режимы, как российские, редко заканчиваются без большой войны. Без того, чтобы хлопнуть дверью. Одна надежда, что был прав Сахаров: что большая война стала благодаря ядерному оружию невозможна. Но и Сахаров часто заблуждался. Так что не будем оптимистами. Как говорил Искандер: «Если что-то еще может помочь кроликам, если что-то вообще еще может помочь, то скорее тревога, чем удовлетворение».

Полностью разговор доступен по ссылке .