SIDORKON'94: APPROACHES TO COMPREHENSION
Roman ARBITMAN (Saratov):
Hello, Sergey and Andrey!
Thanks for Oberham. I read it the same day. It seems to me that
the material called "Transcript of the meeting" is very bad and not
deserves to be included anywhere. Not funny and, most importantly, not
to the place. As for everything else...
Nikolaev’s diary, which took center stage in the issue, is
Debatable, it deserves attention. But. It didn’t leave me while reading
the idea that I am reading a personal letter from Andrei Nikolaev is not intended
treasured to me. There was a certain feeling of awkwardness, as if I had peeked
behind your back at the moment when you shared the front with your friend
chatting about the past.
If you, Andrey, planned this feeling for the reader, then
your plan was a complete success. It seems to me that you are quite right (ho-
and in several places superficially - speed, speed...)
conveyed the general atmosphere of the con. You even managed to imitate me
a person who drinks, which greatly increases my shares in the eyes of the fandom.
And one more thing (so as not to touch anymore). About "The Wanderer". It seems to me
that now any controversy about this award (votes “against” or even
agitation "for") are lowering our corporate prestige. There is a bonus.
She occupies such and such a specific place. All grievances or justifications
they degrade the fantastic cause we serve (please
style forhigh calm!), to the level of a near-literary get-together. And
I, as a critic, feel stuffy in this atmosphere of petty grievances and
reproaches and want to drive somewhere into a non-fantastic region
and for the rest of my life write, for example, about post-Soviet detective
tive, or about a love story. Or only about the work of my beloved -
of Viti Pelevin, whose non-appearance (in the context of all these disputes)
makes his position unusually advantageous.
We don’t need to seem worse than we really are. We
better actually. After all, it is clear that we are not working for
to get from the hands of good people a few hundred grams of quality
vein bronze. Don't confuse cause and effect."I beg you"
(quote, I don’t remember just from whom. It seems from the fitter Mechnikov.
Or from Khasbulatov).
Now again about Oberham.
Article by A. Legostaev "Good Advice". You, Comrade Legostaev,
convincingly proved that the writings of domestic authors received
who wrote “The Snail” are related to Soviet reality. This is why
extremely similar to each other. I propose one more criterion
similarities: all authors of the winning works have ever eaten
cucumbers Fresh or salted.
Article by A. Privalov about voting at Interpresscon. me in
A. Privalov (like his friend from Moscow A. Sviridov) captivates
unpretentious condescending attitude towards the public at Interpress
horse." The attitude is very much in the spirit of Soviet leaders,who thought
people were a brainless object of propaganda, and they were sure that this
It's easy to be hypnotized by anything. Perhaps I'm biased
walls But it seems to me the greatest cosmic stupidity to put in
reproaching authors is a normal desire for readers to read them
creations and THEMSELVES concluded whether they are good or bad. Or, for me -
niya A. Privalov and A. Sviridov, a man who received the book in his hands -
book in a light blue (or multi-colored) cover, was already doomed
chen (hypnotized, zombified, forced?) to stop his
boron on this particular piece? I was especially delighted by the judges
of the already mentioned A. Sviridov in No. 4 (I think) “Feng-Gil-Don”
about Dr. R.S. Katz. Let's leave aside the boorish and tactless
a hint at the death of the professor (rumors of whose death, of course,
greatly exaggerated!). Sviridov brought the bad judgments of A. Pri-
gross to the point of absurdity, accusing your humble servant of the fact that any
Anyone could get from me a book included in the list. Rules
It would have been better, of course, not to give books to readers at all, preferably
believing that somehow the holy spirit and themselves would come upon them,
without reading, everyone will figure it out. According to the principle: “I do not read the books of Comrade Katz
I read it, but I will say..."
Hmmm, Messrs. Privalov and Sviridov are men of great intelligence.
However, on my part, of course, not much smarter now
write all these lines. The madness of such gentlemen is so terrible thattightens. And you, without noticing it, begin to make excuses
the fact that I never ate soap in my life and never served in the Gestapo. Brrr.
Cretinissimo. It doesn’t seem to matter: let them, if they want, think that
whatever. But stupid feelings (of self-esteem or something
like this) are forced into a stupid argument. Or maybe
the authors of such judgments believe that honest, normal competition
Is sterility, as it were, dishonest a priori? If there is any se-
It’s true, I agree to give up altogether next time
struggle - from "shameless advertising pressure" and in general about
Please ask the nomination committee not to include my articles in the list.
Otherwise, one might actually get the idiotic impression that
I do my business “for my uncle.” Although, as you know, I
I do it for money.
Roman Arbitman
Valery OKULOV (Ivanovo):
"INTERPRESSCON": A PART OF "OTHER LIFE"...
"...And yet this action was strange, absolutely fantastic-
magic strange..."
This is how he begins his article “Interpresscon, Wanderer, Bronze
Snail..." ("KO", 05.24.94) Lyudmila Nuknevich from Riga. And then
asks the question "What will remain in the assets of the conference? If we leave
an opportunity for creative communication that is insanely expensive in today’s times
...and the pleasure of the awards parade?"
"- ...Don't know..."But here is Andrei Anatolyevich (for those who did not understand - Nikolaev)
no doubts disturb:
"There are so many wonderful people around...We are going to spend the evening in
pleasant conversations... It’s still a wonderful thing “Interpresscon”, I
I pray tirelessly for Sidorovich... How many beloved faces, how many
wonderful meetings and meaningful conversations...There are old
ry acquaintances...Three months of hard work are being realized, the dream is
tions, careful planning of events..."
Eh, gentlemen, I would like your worries!
Will you allow me, a science fiction lover from the "outback" of Russia,
say a few words about "Sidorkon", "Wanderer", and even a few words about
life in general!..
Do you understand how everything has changed around you? Or in your narrow
circle of “another life” you don’t even notice the changes that are terrifying
those whom they directly affect?
Sasha Sidorovich, who is holding the con at his own expense, really
the worries of an engineer in obtaining everything will not be entirely clear
fifty dollars (and this is his monthly income...)
But Interpresscon is for professionals! But here too: printed
regularly Andrei Mikhailovich will not understand the concerns of some (not only
provincial, and even St. Petersburg) "writer" trying
add your own (maybe even a good) story...
Gentlemen, you see what is on the shelves and trays (even in yours,
in St. Petersburg... But we don’t have Russian science fiction (almost none!).
Magazinesdifficult to find even in libraries, and even going there is difficult
a hundred times...
He loves science fiction to the point of noble madness, but cannot
to make money from it, I still haven’t read “Gravilet...”,
neither “Another Sky”, nor “The History of Soviet Science Fiction”. Where and how to find them
take it? This is not before, now there are enough other worries...
Times are changing....
Reading Americans! Yes, they are better than “Monks under the Moon”!
Three years ago I admired the stories of Andrei Stolyarov!
Ambitious Andrei Mikhailovich, claiming to be a master and judge
last resort, I'm not interested... Let him get "Country"
nicks" at least every year!..
As for calls for war, as you can see, gentlemen, it’s good, but
Life is a bit boring if you want something “spicy”!
"The World of Russian Fiction", created by A. M. and Co. "Leading
science fiction writers of Russia", is alarming... I would "unceremoniously" shake
hand to Sasha Shchegolev, who expressed his concerns in the debate. Only
I'm afraid Alexander hands over to some SF "amateur" so easily
won't give...
Eh, gentlemen, stop your games! Write! More and better-
She! And as original as possible, not even equaling the “Living God,
recognized as such by everyone without exception!!!
Valery Okulov
Nikolay GORNOV (Omsk):
Hello, Seryozha! Hello, Andryusha!
Guys, I love you too much (in a good waywords) so as not
respond to the second youth of dinosaur fanzines. But here's writing
I really didn't want to. And it’s not even a lack of time, but a lack of
the ability to formulate something worthy of publication even
two hundred copies. I don't want to deceive my former readers.
lei, for whom the “Guardian Bird” brought many pleasant moments.
But still I harbored several unpleasant thoughts. Let bu-
the truth is true. That way, the old fashioned way. With a quickdraw, from the shoulder. As in
the good old "Guardian Bird".
So, opinion. First about the magazine. Beautiful, no words. I'm talking
with full responsibility, as a colleague in the shop. And photomontage is
generally a dream. You'll lick your fingers! Like an idiot, I open it on any
place and goofing off. I just swallow my saliva. I'm jealous - scary! to me
If only three years ago I had a computer and a video camera... Everyone would have died!
What can I say... the dreams of an idiot. But how many interesting things
irretrievably lost! When I watch video footage from previous
"Sidorkonov", my stomach is churning with anger - or they were filming it, uro-
yeah, that's not it! So you can film the Tchaikovsky competition, but not Sidorkon.
In general, guys, as in spirit: they made a beautiful magazine, but
honor the clueless.
Do you know why? You know, but you don’t want to admit it. Go-
Believe that you touched on many pressing topics. Yes, I agree. you
You’ll even make a second issue... And you’ll cover all these topics with it. Ho-ho-
Roshyu, everything can be closed with oneanalytical article in any
be "Intercom". Yes, and this material would fit well there too.
A separate block. If, of course, you throw away about forty percent of the passing
a lot of material (Arbitman’s article and the like).
I agree, Sidorkon is a powerful impulse. After it you want to stay
make your mark in the fan press. I was guilty of this myself. But on my own
I know from experience that after such a drunken creative flight comes
hangover. And then - emptiness. "Oberham" of the first convocation died after
fourth number. The “second convocation” will solemnly die on Ma-
the logical number "two". And don't argue with me. I know that
I steal. Of course, there will also be Sidorkon-95, and with it (what the hell is not joking!)
another "Ober" of the "new generation". Guys, we already have one
a permanent living magazine (let's not point fingers). Then
at least the name will be different. Or better yet, a yearbook. A
what, cool! Oberham presents Sidorkon-95, 96, 97... Further on
environment.
As you can see, I am very critical. Maybe it's just
today, and tomorrow I will think a little differently. God knows, but I don't
from evil. I write what I think. Very ambiguous thoughts come
about the topics raised in the issue, and about the con itself. Dista-
The nation is growing and everything is seen in a slightly different light.
By the way, I really liked your article, Andryusha. Catchy
somehow. A unique personal approach. Almost intimate presentation
material. As ifwe sit with you over a glass of tea, and you tell
eat. Cool! I'll re-read it. Recall.
The rest (except for bonus statistics) - pin-
ki on a dead donkey, that is, on “The Wanderer”. Is it worth it? Remember
what the well-known Pelevin said to B. Strugatsky when the latter
presented it to your seminar at Sidorkon-92? "Let the dead
They themselves bury their dead, and I will dig in the other direction.”
Vitya is an angry, cynical, but very smart person. Now even we
smelled this corpse smell. Let them bury themselves.
But, generally speaking, Stolyarov’s report was worth publishing. And under
I would subscribe to Shchegolev’s “contra” article myself. (“Great, dare-
lo, it’s a pity that there’s only one!” Fadeev, “Young Guard”). As for
the notorious "Wanderer", then time will tell and arrange. We won't
hurry up - we have eternity ahead of us. For now it reminds me
the act of collective masturbation by a “group of comrades.” Moreover, with the use
Sue exhibitionism. So that the public can look at this act for themselves
satisfaction. And may dear Boris Natanovich excuse me.
The fact that he participated did not make me respect him any less. Yes and
moreover, the same Andrei Mikhailovich whom fans can de-
to become a bogeyman of wicked revanchism and a target in the near future
popular-moronic wit in the spirit of "Feng-Gil-Dong", still
I am loved and respected. In any case, he is honest and consistent.
cal intheir actions. The rest follow the lead. They are writers
or not - again time will judge. I personally enjoy reading
I will continue to read the works of all members of the jury of “The Wanderer”
all the new things you can get your hands on.
This is my opinion. This is not a conciliatory passage - “guys,
let's live together!" - this is a call not to take everything so close to
heart.
As for “Sidorkon” itself, which previously was also “part-
throughout my life"... I analyzed my impressions for a long time and realized
finally: I died. After the death of the "Guardian Bird" * everything in me died,
what was connected with her - Sasha Didenko, Nikolaev (city), my co-
telny, where "SP" was written, fandom with its "ebullient" life. And there
Sidorkon remained on the other side of the River Styx. My current co-
standing can be called "afterlife". She is no better and no worse. She
just different. There is no turning back. "Charon does not transport back"
(S. Stulnik). Therefore, everything that happened in St. Petersburg is like deja for me
vu. Like a dream. And a dream is just that: a dream. However, I'm not the only one. There
There were exactly half of these zombies. Watching walking corpses. Heroes
the heyday of fandom during the period of early perestroika. Gathering of mo-
mental and physical cripples. One group "Fedorov, Zavgorodniy,
Tsitsarkin" is worth a whole bunch of funeral candles. What kind of people, what kind
The characters are simply legends! And Chertkov? You need to see this for yourself
eyes! One irresponsible journalist in the middleeighties
called him the "ugly duckling". We laughed at the accuracy of the allegory
ria and were sure that a beautiful girl would definitely grow out of him.
soaring swan bird. And here is the result. Only, alas, not a swan. Sco-
Rhea is a secretary bird. Narcissistic, pompous, important. You can
quote these lines to him. Perhaps Yutanov’s brains aren’t all there yet
gave storage. Maybe he'll think about it. Although it’s unlikely. Rather, hands bo-
won't serve anymore. It's a pity. Andryusha Chertkov was a good guy.
Generally speaking, I can write about many things, but why? I think it's time
wrap up. I hope you understood the general idea.
In general, success, gentlemen, editors,
sincerely and without malice, forever yours
Kolka Gornov
*About the next death of the “Guardian Bird”. Firstly, starting
somewhere from the tenth issue of "SP" we are regularly informed about its soon-
post-mortem death. Some people keep hoping: "Is it really possible?
died?!" Can't wait! Kolka is once again fooling everyone
on the ears. Spreads misinformation so that interested parties
were vigilant. Just wait - the “bird” will recover after pe-
flight to the northern regions and will shit on your head again. Dura lex,
sed lex - Charon does not carry birds to the other side. There are wings. Inter-
So, which “Guardian Bird” will fly to the middle of the Styx? And secondly,
in mid-July we received from Nikolaev the 27th issue of "Strazh-Pti-
tsy"... Thank you, Kolya! JSC "MMM"! - Approx.ed.
Pavel VYAZNIKOV (Moscow):
Dear Sergey and Andrey,
Thank you very much for Oberham, I read it with interest. According to content
I have n>2 thoughts:
1) I just can’t understand the stormy enthusiasm over the failure to receive
niya Perumov Prize. First of all, from everything I've heard (and
which I read about in Oberham), the distribution of elephants this time looked like
somehow not good; although they got, by and large, due
meadows, but where Katz is, there is Perumov, and generally something unpleasant
was in all procedures.
They talked a lot about Perumov for a long time. I started reading something
didn’t want it, but then curiosity took over: how come, so many ru-
bashing him! Is he really worse than Petukhov-Medvedev-Golovachev?
I found a defective copy on the tray (to make it cheaper) and bought it.
And I found that there was nothing wrong. Yes, not Tolkien, yes, not Stolyarov
(and this is good, by the way). But not Petukhov either. Quite soundly chipped
great entertainment, and in vain “Feng-Gil-Dong” says that a kilo
the bass is better. I read Perumov not without pleasure (yes, and let
The first to throw a stone at me will be the one who has never looked or cleaned
tal similar). I’m unlikely to re-read it, but I won’t throw the book away either.
zero, but still put it on the shelf. Let it stand. Next to Tolkien.
Hey Stolyarov! Atta me!
It’s just that Perumov, having chosen a Mediterranean setting for himself, swung
for more than I could handle. And it’s not his fault, not even
troubles.If he had written all this not about hobbits, but about some shmendri-
kah, no one would have paid much attention, otherwise they would have noted
would be favorable: well, another fantasy, and, which is good news, not
the adventures of a space prostitute and not someone else's star
revenge on bloodthirsty vampires. Why break spears? For what?
what's the hype?
2)Secondly, the awarding of the prize to R. Katz was disappointing. Arbitman -
a good critic, but for being a good critic in general, a bonus
It's not worth giving. And a prize-winning essay is not criticism/publication
litistics is not a work of art and is not at all
anything other than a heavily swollen fen.
Gadget, joke, gadget. In second place you have the brilliant-
ny Pereslegin. Does this mean The Doom Principle is worse?
"History of Soviet fiction"? It's hard to believe. And if it's worse, then
Why was this work even submitted for consideration? And if not ours-
there was nothing better than "History..." - it would not have been better not at all
award a prize for this category?
(And Pereslegin...I have these little books by Laz-
Rchuk and Stolyarov. So I keep them only for the sake of Pereslegin’s
leslovii, because I have Lazarchuk in another edition).
3) What outraged me most was Stolyarov’s article-speech
captivity This means that if fiction is not over-inverted, it can also be
read without being an academician-philosopher-psychologist-philologist, thenIsn't it really worth reading? And we, therefore, Great Masters, will
teach you, the homespun village, so as not to be a foolish milord - but only
Would you carry Stolyarov from the market? Where does such powerful contempt for
to the overwhelming majority of science fiction writers, both ours and foreign ones?
And they are trying to convince me that the person who is in the “Left Hand of Darkness”
I only found a story "about how a certain alien alternately
is either a man or a woman," (or maybe it’s a bad translation
read it and didn’t understand anything? so there are originals!) capable of something
teach me this? That he has gone “further” and “will not be able to return”
"(at the level of W. Le Guin)? Alas. I don't believe it. And I see in front of me
the words of a man who has already understood that he cannot write, will never
write to him "The Left Hand of Darkness" or even "West of Eden", and therefore
trying to pretend that these things are not enough for him (for)
smart. Further, he refers to Strugatsky, who teaches competition
talk not with Harrison and Clark, but with Marquez and Bulgakov. A
that Mikhail Afanasyevich never wrote the farcical “Ivan Vasily”
Lievich" with a continuation and decidedly mass cultural (not "mass-
ltnye", Mr. Stolyarov: cult is one thing, but culture is another!) "Rocko-
your eggs"? Of course, you can stand on your hind legs and shout that in "Yay-
tsakh "- there is a deep meaning and subtext hidden. Or you can just admit
them for what they are - a typical essay from the series "Deadly-
ray of Professor Ivanov" or"The amazing adventures of the great
of Detective Nat Pinkerton." With a parody of precisely this kind of co-
repairs, of course, and with political satire. According to his talent
him M.A. Bulgakov, of course, could not write a perfect macabre
Latura - but he deliberately made the thing specifically for mass culture -
ratures. And I didn’t think it was shameful, I think.
And the rest of Bulgakov’s works have everything necessary: a plot with
all the endings, wonderful language, everything is easy to read
even by a high school student - although it can be read and understood
it’s not so easy, there are so many critics and literary scholars around
they wrote, purely as interpreters of Kun Tzu. And yet it is possible to
the honor of the same "The Master and Margarita" is simply like a novel with an enticing
plot, "elements of mysticism" and even with shooting and spy-
onami. In this reading, the novel is accessible to almost everyone, and Bul-
Gakov did not have to give up his maintenance for this, as, according to
in the opinion of the respected A.M. Stolyarov, this is necessary for public access
ness. It’s just that the novel can be read at different levels, and at each
he will be interesting: if you want, follow the funny adventures
cat Hippopotamus and admire what teenage girls really like
scenes of Satan's ball, if you want, study the nuances like whether there was
Yeshua is a follower of the Greek “medicos”, what does Albigensian have to do with it?
people, where was Saturn at the time of Berlioz’s death, who was brought under ma-
sky chairmanTo the acoustic commission, why didn’t they bring Narzan?
to the kiosk at the Patriarch's, and which of the evangelists and commentators of Pi-
Sania is closer to the author of the novel. Bulgakov simply does not need a “qualification”
roved reader": whoever managed to read it, and whoever
He who reads it will re-read it, and whoever re-reads it will understand something else...
By the way, the Strugatskys, whom Stolyarov allegedly looks up to,
We never allowed ourselves to write abstrusely. Clever - yes, abstruse - no.
And always very entertaining. The most common thing is
foot reading.
Now let's take the literary war strategist. Honestly and honestly
hand on heart: how many people will eagerly read “Monks under the Moon”
and how many of them will want to reread the novel? Oh, master, you write
only for qualified readers? And who do you think is up to-
qualified enough? Surely he exists in the singular?
What do you mean?.. Next, see the fifth point of Mr. Stolyarov’s speech -
penultimate paragraph...
Let Stolyarov not be offended: I DO NOT consider him a bad writer.
But his claims are still not according to his height, his aplomb is insulting,
arrogance is repulsive. But the works are still dark, like Len-
sky. I, God forbid, am not calling for Stolyarov to be thrown off any
be it a ship or classify anyone/anything as an enemy, I don’t demand
condemn... but that’s not possible.
Books are, as Stolyarov himself writes, artistic and non-fictional.
pre-literary (in the sense of non-literary, notcritical-publicis-
tic). Fiction books are usually interesting and often general
feet. Non-fiction is simply non-fiction. An interesting book
everyone will read it and, if it is complex, will try to understand (if
this “everyone” is not really a stump, in which case the author, be he
between seven spans in the forehead, powerless), and this uninteresting
will be put aside, no matter how much deep meaning the author puts into it.
Even scientific research, in my opinion, should be
interesting to read (“The Golden Bough”, “Zulu Chaka”, “Ethnogenesis
and the Earth's biosphere", for example). Yes, many books require a certain
no preparation. But be proud that your book is incomprehensible?!
That's dignity! And also encourage you to write for someone there
special reader - in my opinion, this is a matter for those who cannot
write for everyone and tries to disguise such inability
Philippic on the theme "green grapes". And you, brother, write first
a simple space opera, and put so much meaning into it,
how long can you take? So that the boy Petya would later tell his friend Va-
behold - “cool book, you know, he’s kind of there...”, and serious and ly-
The great literary critic Pyotr Solomonich has compiled a thick volume of commentaries
Tariev or the monograph "Interaction of Zen and Early Christian
worldview in the story by A. M. Plotnikov “Cosmic meat”
"I'm exaggerating, of course. But wouldn't you like to accept the challenge, and not
strike a pose- they say, I’m above this and to the level of the public -
I can’t go down?.. He’s taller. Master with a cap.
And the “mechanism of artistic
no assessment" when Nine Good (and who assessed them?) Writers
will tell the reader - this is this, little one, lalya, and this is badass. Mile-
little ones, we’ve been taught this way for seven decades, and we’re still “Cherry”
"Vy Garden" is staged as a tragedy, but we know about Katerina that she was
a ray of light. Isn't that enough? I, father, somehow got rid of it myself.
Rus', to the best of your taste and abilities. There are some. Do you want
educate me as a reader - for God's sake, just please, don't force me
flax. Write well - accessible and smart, that's how I'll be educated.
Do you remember there was such a great teenage adventure -
"The Wanderer's House" by Mirer? Everyone probably read it at school age.
And what was made of it during the film adaptation - when they conceived a movie “a la
Tarkovsky"? This is what happens from too much thinking. Absurdity-
vaniya. And what a film it could be!
And A. Shchegolev made me happy. Well said.
By the way, he knows how to write interestingly.
Even for children - and nothing is more difficult than writing for children.
Here you are, Uncle Stolyarov, take a well-worn topic - the same
"materialism", now almost excluded from the vocabulary, except perhaps the vocabulary
"Labor Russia". Take and build from a hackneyed topic like this
a story so that children would ask each other to read it (as they ask
mynephews their friends Tyurin-Shchegolevsky "Cage for boo-
ynykh"). Otherwise it turns out ugly. Otherwise it turns out - “ours”
science fiction and “not our” science fiction. Otherwise you end up with arrogance.
Otherwise, the Council of Nine appears, which will begin to
stamps "MASS CULTURE", "READING READING", "WORK OF GENIUS".
And there is no need for anything messianic: it fell to us, the Great Russians, to carry
the light of spirituality for the dark-stricken West and the world in general. These pe-
We already know the dreams, and it does not become a decent person to repeat them.
Indecent. If you are truly a beacon of spirituality, then you
don't praise, just write. There is someone to praise. Lev Niko-
Laevich probably didn’t set himself up as an example. Although he taught others
life. However, they were found and praised. They even made a movie. In Oxford
are studying. In Delhi, that street was called Tolstoy Marg. And no one
ask - everyone will say: light. Spirituality and all that. Even who
I haven't read it myself. And this is the only way.
I got carried away. But that's because I was angry. And I got angry because
what a disgrace.
Yes! By the way! Isn’t it interesting how the “alternative”
history" all other topics, even utopia like "dark future"? See
results of voting on Interpresscon, etc.
In general, I read Oberham with interest and pleasure.
I remain respectful to you, "Oberham" and, by the way and despite
no matter what, Stolyarova,
PavelVyaznikov
July 13, 1994
Andrey LAZARCHUK (Krasnoyarsk):
Dear Sergey and Andrey!
Yes, I wanted to remain silent. I don't like scandals in general, but scan-
Dalov with his participation in particular. Moreover, the opponent
Comrade would have had a trump card in his hands: “They shoved a statue at him, so they worked off-
no..." I hoped that the passions would subside and it would be possible to talk together
laugh at each other. Unfortunately, this did not happen, and
could not have happened - but often you believe in what you understand with your mind
I don't want to.
(There is a common misconception: supposedly the more
a person knows the facts, the more objectively he evaluates events. In action
tility, the event is first assessed - internally, subconsciously
certainly - and then the facts are interpreted according to this assessment. Poe-
therefore the so-called rational revaluation - changing the point
vision under the influence of new information - there are sufficient
but rarely. But it does happen.)
So, I will not try to convince anyone, and may they be rewarded
to each according to his faith. I'll just tell you what I know, I'll try
object to the most acute accusations (not only in your ad-
res) and will share my opinion about the situation as a whole. Declared in advance
I say: I don’t want to offend anyone, and if someone sees some kind of un-
good hint, let him know - this is an aberration of perception.
* * *
Many of ourtroubles - due to excessive emotional coloring
versatility of words in the Russian language. What is divinely good for art?
natural prose and poetry - turns out to be a serious obstacle in business
everyday It turns out to be extremely difficult to find neutrally colored
expressions, and having encountered military terminology (often used
blemished due to clarity, clarity of meaning and laconicism), not for-
blow the trumpet and don’t look around: where is he, adversary, where? Oh, here you go
he! Well, come here... But try changing the notorious report
military terminology into sports terminology - and the blood will stop
rub your eyes.
The writer has no enemies. At least today. Literary
war is the same war as Zarnitsa or chess. For defeats
it does not pay with lives or cities. And is valued at
It is, as a rule, not a result, but a method.
"MG" really lost, but not because "they" wrote
bad, but because they were used as the main weapon
political denunciations. And the fact that the authors of "MG" continue to publish,
does not indicate victory or even survival of this monster:
there are authors, the box is there, the cars work - but MG does not. She has
The main thing disappeared: the Great Round Seal.
The same thing happened with the WTO, which could only exist
at a time when some can do it for free, while others can’t even for a price.
money. Can you imagine the WTO today?
In short, the so-called victoryfree (let's not use
use of the term "democratic") literature is due to the fact that
that her enemies died due to climate change. The mouse defeated the dino
saurus
If she could do this, it means the time of dinosaurs is over.
moose
And now mice can fuck themselves until they completely wear themselves out, but
they won’t be able to give birth to a new dinosaur.
Although, as we remember, it was more familiar with dinosaurs. Here we are, eh
here they are, and our cause is just...
The main thesis that critics of the Stoly report made was
Rova, and the prosecutors in the “Strannik” case, were like this: Stolyarov
wants to seize power in science fiction. Here I understand the first three
words, but then comes some kind of oxymoron. What should the
such power, in the absence of political censorship, is forced
careful editing, decision-making bodies and Soviet power?
Let whoever knows answer. I pass.
The formation of a certain power structure is impossible on principle.
ly, and warn the public about the possibility and even obvious
the inevitability of it, hitting the rail and squealing is a bright occupation, but
resulting either from incomplete thinking, or... Either.
The second point of the charge is something like this: Stolyarov invented
"Wanderer" to reward yourself with it. I have an objection: Stolyarov
“The Wanderer” was not invented and was involved in the development significantly
later. The authorship belongs to the quartet: Yana Ashmarina, Nik.Yutanov,
Sergei Ivanov and me. Howyou see, not all “founding fathers”
managed to grab a bronze figurine for themselves. This is due to the fact
that a lot of effort was put into making the
miyu as "uncontrollable" as possible. However, this has already been discussed
said. I will add that I would be grateful to any opponent who
someone could suggest a way to effectively influence me -
jury and voting outcome (primitive measures like universal
do not offer any bribe).
Point three: “TF” established a prize, which it itself greedily grabbed
vatila. By biased selection of jury members, bribing them...
Let's say... But the bribery was carried out by publishing Russian books
authors - why else do publishing houses exist and why else do they
give prizes? If someone else bribes the jury in this way -
it will happily vote for him, and without any remorse
conscience.
Perhaps there were no other complaints - just the same statements -
were in a much more boorish form. But we're not talking about form.
we will, no.
But essentially - as much as you like. Dear smart Berezhnoy
suddenly threatened the writers with excommunication from the fandom. I read - no
I believed my eyes. I read it again. That's right - he threatens. Moreover -
constantly confusing causes with effects. Well, they will excommunicate me from the fan-
at home. They will be forgotten like Herostratus. Who will be worse off? Me, or what? And
I won't notice. I will write as I wrote, print as I print. Not
dependsa writer from the fandom absolutely, and the fans have conceit
error.
Legostaev’s note is generally correct, and I agree with much: de-
Indeed, “Snail” has a significant social bent; so what? Show me a work of recent years in which one way or another
otherwise the affairs of today and even a little bit of yesterday would not be touched upon.
tion. But one phrase cut unpleasantly: about a dead lion and the obligation
the excitement, even the rituality of kicking him. Firstly, practically
ski, all the works awarded to date were
written, and partly published, under a living and roaring lion. A
secondly, he’s dead, he’s buried, it seems, in the cemetery at home -
other animals.
And finally, the contrasts scattered throughout Oberham
"Wanderer" - shameful, prostituted, bought and immediately
sold - to an honest and impeccable "IPK" and reputable
"To the snail." Let me speculate on this topic.
In my opinion, awarding literary prizes in general is not
It's too ethical. Any author in his coordinate system is all
where is the undisputed leader. At the same time, the entire history of literature is
history of literary competitions. The system has not yet been invented
a mother who would not give rise to criticism. In the process, however,
Three equal schemes for identifying “the very best” have been developed.
Firstly, all applicants gather and resolve this issue between
yourself. Secondly, they canappeal to some authority. B-
third, appeal to readers (viewers, listeners). Razu-
Of course, each of the circuits has subcircuits, mixed ones can arise
options; Finally, it’s not so difficult to come up with something fourth:
for example, resort to drawing lots or awarding awards only for the anniversary
ram...But only the first three schemes are taken seriously. It is clear that
"The Wanderer" is formatted according to "Scheme 1" with elements of "Scheme 2".
"Snail" - "Scheme 2" in its pure form, "IPK" and "Great Ring" -
"scheme 3". to say that one of these proven thousand-
years of schemes better than others - ridiculous. Everyone has dignity and
disadvantages. For example, the “most clear and democratic” “IPK”
extremely easy to manipulate (I'm not saying that manipulation
were carried out, but they are possible), and without violating the rules of state
polishing. "Democratic elections" here are held in the past
preliminary selection by the Electoral College, and the selection is carried out by
a very limited circle of people. In essence, “scheme 2” works,
coded under "scheme 3". So what? Is it worth giving up on this?
based on what has already become quite a prestigious award? If we complete
We reproach the founders - then any mistakes are forgiven. If we don’t trust...
Then why the hell are you reading us?
Why am I doing all this? Besides, probably, the scandal at IPK-94
has no rational explanation. Just fandom, grown-
permanently sewnconflict with the authorities, "MG" and the WTO, peaceful
perceives life with anxiety: something is missing. And grievances piss-
bodies, who by the will of fate found themselves outside the “wanderers” club, fell on
starved soil.
I feel sorry for Shchegolev. When a talented person bets on his
such a fat cross to fate is sad. But what to do?
he writs it with his unwavering hand, three times in a row... God bless him
judge.
However, I really won’t shake hands with him.
* * *
And the con was magnificent, so what can I say.
A. Lazarchuk
Mikhail USPENSKY (Krasnoyarsk):
THE OFFENDED ARE PLACED TO SLEEP UNDER THE BACKS, RIGHT?
It’s good that during Interpresscon I’m not particularly lying.
got into the scandals of the last day and retained the brightest memories
minania! “But the release of Oberham, living up to its name, is believed to
brought me face to face with the rude and not at all feminine reality -
tee.
Well, all the complaints about “The Wanderer” are quite understandable and completely
fit into the picture of the general attack on the “sixties”,
adopted by a number of metropolitan writers of the next generation. Yes,
the current composition of the jury belongs precisely to the “sixties”
ri - from B.N. Strugatsky to A. Lazarchuk - according to ideas, according to the image of us -
ideas and method of implementation. And there's nothing you can do about it." Friend
I don’t have any writers,” he said in such casesone known
nice guy.
In previous years, the author and the fandom needed each other, co-
bringing in, as they imagined, a special detachment of the spiritual elite opposing
totalitarian regime. The authors were priests, the fans were an adequate
on the move. This parallel is not accidental: in the church now there is something
the same thing, and the flock shied away now into Hare Krishnas, then into Baha'is, then
into devil worship.
Freedom of the press (as well as freedom of conscience) destroyed this
unity. Well, you have to pay for everything. And the writer, like the hero
"The Magnificent Seven" sums up the literary struggle: "Vra-
gov no. Living enemies" (Medvedev as if not former, V. Shcherbakov pub-
rejoices at the fruitful results of his personal meetings with Bogomat-
Ryu, libraries are littered with unclaimed works by Petukhov).
And recently I saw Odysseus on the counter, who was leaving Ithaca
for only four hundred and twenty rubles.
Now it turns out that there are no friends either. That is, we still have
exist, but are already beginning to assert rights to copyright
freedom, dictate the author’s style of behavior and show him how
Galileo, instruments of torture: "The outcome of this conflict, if it is still
will arise is practically a foregone conclusion: who needs details,
sit with Alexander Bushkov" (S. Berezhnoy).
So the conflict arose, and it was not at all the fault of the writers who
All they wanted was to establish their own professional award,
organized, by the way, in the image andsimilar to the foreign "Nebula".
"What do we call an author who is not interested in the reader's opinion?
lei?” asks Berezhnoy. Whatever. Socrates, who did not write
not a single line. Rimbaud, who forgot his poems. Kafka, bequeathed
burn everything he wrote. Khlebnikov, who carried manuscripts in the dirt
no pillowcase. Yes, the same current Russian postmodernists,
generally hammering a bolt on the reader - and not even a simple one, but an anchor one.
And what did Pushkin, our father, teach? "Do not value people's love"
“Go away, it’s not night,” etc.
Fandom could not really influence Goskomizdat in the past, not
This is also a decree for the current publisher, unless the publisher himself is from the fandom
originally from And even then the balance-buldo weighs over him. And "commodity" Bu-
he will prefer Shkov to a “non-commodity” genius with an impeccable reputation -
tation.
It’s another matter that in past ordeals a “new social
a community of people who are sympathetic to each other, co-thinking and empathetic
living, representing that very “conciliarity” about which there is no
New patriots dream well. It would be nice to protect her in the world
disappearing values. What, it’s become boring, there’s no one to fight with?
In general, all this jazz does not fit into my bucolic
provincial brains. These, gentlemen, are your capital games, sort of
White House defense.
Another complaint to those who write and evaluate in A. Legos’s remark
Taeva about "Snail": "...to snatch the coveted prize from the handscompetent jury, it is imperative to kick the dead
lion", that is, the Soviet state. Well, so that you are so healthy-
you're like this lion is dead...
And finally, Shchegolev’s rebuke to Stolyarov’s report. Shchegolev
sincerely believes that he “lost both the cup at the feast of his fathers and the fun,
and his honor." I don’t know what about the cup and fun, but the third
He took a big risk with this component. Because all his attacks are very
CAN easily be explained by one single reason - depend-
tew (regardless of the actual, no matter how noble,
awakenings). But with us it’s simple: if they CAN, then they probably WILL
explained exactly like that. It's my own fault, I set myself up.
But Stolyarov, who had the audacity to remind the highly
to the meeting that talent is not distributed in equal rations, that God
and he didn’t level the forest.” Unbearable observer! If only I knew about myself: a lot-
Some people wouldn’t even notice it..."Such things cannot be forgiven, Andrey Mi-
Khailovich, this is the reason for all revolutions.
What if The Wanderer came with a bunch of extra bucks? I would shoot
arranged?
"The Wanderer" is a workshop matter. Are you tired of the Hamburg inn -
please give me another allegory. The journeyman claims to be an active
Noble member of the Brewers Guild. Brews beer and pours it out
on the bench where the jury members in leather pants sit. If the pants
stuck - good beer. But the brewers themselves determine its quality.
ry, and not regulars at pubs, some ofwhich we cannot
distinguish Levenbrau from Guinness.
Was someone offended? And I and other jury members are not offended to see
grins and hear whispers that, supposedly, they agreed?
If you don’t trust, then there’s no need to slay horses, waste money
tit. By the way, Moscow writers are already friends with each other because of the Booker.
rude and don’t say hello. Fortunately, this almost never happened to us.
However, I don’t believe in the abolition of Interpresscon. What for?
football fans cursed, and for the cause, the coach of the Russian national team, and
after all, those who could, dragged themselves overseas. So let's hold on
together like in the worst of times.
Otherwise, on the next horse you will sit by numbers, sing in chorus,
discuss the last novel of the unreasonably buried Zelazny and
wait for a panicked woman to come running from her watch, crying: “Gentlemen
fans, gentlemen fans! H.G. Wells has come to see you!"
Mikhail Uspensky
Eduard GEVORKYAN (Moscow):
Dear Sergey Valerievich and Andrey Anatolyevich!
Thanks for Oberham. I had a lot of fun. Your recommendations
position relative to the grinding of teeth and clenched fists
I can’t share, because there’s nothing but facts and subjective
I didn’t find any opinions in the book, but you can’t argue with the facts, really
the exact bends of the mind to be offended and even more so to grind with inserted
jaws stupid.
Honestly speaking, the current issue"Obera" turned out (compared to
compared to those in pocket format) are much softer. I would even
said - more bourgeois. However, the discovery with the dragons is simply genius -
linen, I’ll give the one who came up with the idea a bottle.
Now to the point. The fact that the presentation of bronze tsatsoks signifies
It was a scandal - just great. I'll say more - if only
there was no scandal, it would have to be provoked. Scandals like
known to be found only in noble gatherings (or families),
whereas in gatherings of an ignoble nature squabbles take place,
fights and other forms of assault. So the scandal is its own
Yes, Sidorkon's quality mark.
As for the offended, it is impossible without them. If everything
will be satisfied, then the universal balance will be disrupted and there will come
end of the world.
The indignation of a group of comrades regarding
"Wanderer". After all, no one was throwing a barrel at the fans for their choice (ho-
last time there were the most amazing participants). Nobody
didn’t stop them from establishing a couple more (or even a dozen) prizes. Why
impose your opinion on writers who decide to participate modestly
at this celebration of life. And no offense to the fans will be asked -
guys, where exactly are your prizes? "Snail" was invented
Natanych,* the “Great Ring” ordered to reward for a long time, about
“Aelita” has nothing to say!
FOOTNOTE:* - Dear Eduard Vachaganovich is mistaken. "Bronze-
"why snail" was invented,thought out and provided Alexander Sidoro-
Vich and Andrey Nikolaev. Boris Natanovich Strugatsky kindly co-
was invited to become the only member of the jury. This is a historical fact.
(Editor's note)
There is talk that "The Wanderer" was created for a publishing house
Mr. Yutanov, they don’t make sense. Of the eight points, only one
St. Petersburg writer, one publisher and one translator!
Fans can't complain - where else would they taste it to the fullest?
such a spectacle as a showdown among the “celestials”? So what's yours
"paid" they received in full. Although among the fans there is almost
the ritual phrase “we don’t meddle in your affairs and private affairs”, love
inquisitive eyes still sparkle in the dusk.
I am sure that if the writers, without noise, fanfare and half naked
the girls quietly gathered somewhere in the apartment and held a holo-
poking at “The Wanderer” with immediate delivery is a thrill for the
there would be no less curtains. It is possible that financial circumstances
flattery will force us to follow the path of localizing our glorious
events. And here, you understand, guests will be invited to
depending on likes and dislikes, without hypocritical talk about
justice, etc. Then there will be a true hamburger.
By the way, the myth about the Hamburg tavern was invented by Viktor Shklovsky. On
in fact, there was no gathering of fighters in the tavern and there will not be
could - it only took
wouldseveral years. And why would wrestlers-actors find out which one of them
physically stronger? However, this is me nitpicking.
Speaking about myths, I cannot, noble dons, not mention the but-
howl epic that arose at Sidorkon. Strange story with Rybako-
you, as if someone had drunkenly attacked...well, you know who,
has already become a myth, and myths are ineradicable. It's funny that no one ever
remembered by whom and under what circumstances these words were uttered
fatal fabrications. I can’t help but admit that I was involuntary
an eyewitness to this incident, but the logic of the development of the myth forces
me to take a vow of silence. Therefore, even though I know who is on Rybakov
I lied in vain, I will take this secret to the grave.
The audience's reaction to Stolyarov's speech proves that
the content of Andrei Mikhalych’s report, alas, is topical and true
to the last comma. I mean, dots.
Regarding organizational problems. In the future, if everything is
children are fine, maybe it makes sense to charge invitees up to
twenty-five percent of the fee a month or two before the start. Then bu-
There will be fewer mistakes with those who didn’t come, and the losses will be reduced.
And so - everything was fine. Sidorovich - bronze bust on
granite pedestal in the form of Yutanov’s head.
Hi all!
Eduard Gevorkyan
Alexander BOLNYKH (Ekaterinburg):
LATE REGRETTS
This notecould well be titled canonically: “Pi-
from afar" and begin in the same unforgettable style: "I'm not there
it was, but like any honest person..." What can you do if
I really wasn’t there at the last Interpresscon. Everything that
I want to say, I should have said it much earlier. Don't do-
I believe that this would change at least something, but still... There are noticeable bad
new trends began after the first con, but it was easiest
deceive someone who himself longs to be deceived, and they were not noticed.
But for me the slightly hysterical notes of "Oberham" did not come as a surprise -
a given, which Andrei Nikolaev himself can confirm, he must
remember our telephone conversation. Moreover, all this is expressed
I missed it a year ago, so please do not consider this article a pin-
the death of a dead lion, although the lion itself does not consider itself dead. I'm
I urge you to forgive him for this small mistake.
So, let's take the bull by the horns...
Both a year and two ago I was struck, or rather unpleasantly cut
lordly and boorish attitude on the part of the St. Petersburg "refinee" towards everyone
we don’t belong to it. It was made very clear that the holy sacrament
literature is created exclusively in St. Petersburg, somewhere slightly in Moscow
que, and everything else is pathetic attempts, not even worthy of ridicule.
True, upon closer examination it turned out that Peter in
overall there’s nothing to do with it, but the seminar... Oh, this is holy
saints It was partly understandablesuch harshness, there was a war with
"MG", with WTO. But why spit on your friends? Or were there not enough enemies?
Time passed, both the WTO and the MG itself disappeared, but the roar of the cannonade did not
how it doesn't subside. Looks like there's too much ammo stockpiled
So don’t let the good go to waste. Mr. Stolyarov honestly stated that
the war is in full swing. Stated by very familiar Medvedev-Pishchensky
words. Extremes meet, we have seen this once again.
Some expressed amazement at how Stolyarov supposedly took a risk, dared...
Enough of you, naive ones, he had to act like that. Free pi-
There are no such things as giving birth!
So, let’s take a breath and proceed to the most risky part of the game.
tags. A gentle reminder of Bushko's fate will not have any effect on me.
va. We will still have to mention sacred names in vain. Because according to us
to his firm conviction, it was on Stolyarov’s tongue that
was on Boris Natanovich's mind, but the master did not want this statement -
vat personally. At least for the whole country. At the sessions of the seminar
ra he was more frank.
I was lucky enough to visit several of them. Lucky-
turned out, I say this completely without irony, because the highest
Only a madman would deny the literary level of the seminar. But
in a strange, unnatural way they combine with this level
the dirtiest, most nasty morals of the Soviet communal apartment. Boris
Natanovich skillfully quarreled seminarians, sticking out and
praising the "lords"drabants" and trampling everyone else into the mud
nykh. It was made clear, directly and unambiguously, that there was a
juice, holy (see above), and so on. I'm still amazed at how
patience of Slava Loginov, the epithets used in his address I
I wouldn't forgive anyone. Boris Natanovich, you want to refute me -
no? But the transcripts of the seminars are published by your enthusiastic
admirers, although in this case it is a disservice. I don't know
really, why was it necessary to transfer this to Russian science fiction in
in general. No way! Indeed, with the dominance of the Western
waste paper should think about survival. Or is it assumed that
the range is so narrow that forced shooting of con-
kurentov? Or literary talent, even the most extraordinary,
does not imply human talent?
The only thing I would like to add: closed few
the population inevitably degenerates, and we will still see such
monsters that you can’t bring... Well, as long as it includes real-
are truly extraordinary individuals, but even the laws of genetics cannot be deceived
literary genius. Isn't it better to stop in time? With whom and
Why fight now?! With "Aelita"!? She died, but only recently
with the death of Vitaly Ivanovich Bugrov, and by no means when
The great people, irritated by not receiving prizes, tried to assure us
authors. As for the “Wanderer” and “Snails” of different calibers,
I'll repeatmy question, which was never answered: there will be
receive anyone who is not too lazy to come to Interpresscon? C
taking into account, of course, belonging to “all progressive people”
to eternity."
07/20/1994
P.S. I must refute the malicious slander against myself (We are talking about
publication in Oberham of an anecdote about what was supposedly at Volgakon
After Alexander's steamship, the patients were carried into the elevator and placed on
head, how he got to the ninth floor. - Approx. re-
ctions). This did not happen and could not happen! 'Cause I've flown away
sailing on a steamboat. After the Cossack kuren... Here's a question
complicated, I don’t dare to refute it. Maybe he is a sinner. But on the boat
didn't swim.
Share your thoughts about the article