Vadim KAZAKOV
ONE, TWO, THREE - THE SUN IS BURNING?
And heads rolled - and this
There was quite a significant sign,
What new times have come!
A. Galich
It is necessary to talk about this.
One can understand those who, with the best intentions, urge not
stir up a scandal around the presentation of the "Wanderer" award and the report
and Andrei Stolyarov about literary wars - at least for the purpose of
so as not to burden the life and health of those involved with harmful miasmas
respected people who are keen on polemics, first of all Boris Nathan-
HIV. I am afraid, however, that these calls are hopelessly late - con-
frontation has clearly emerged, the positions of the parties are irreconcilable, and the
understanding of what is happening goes far beyond the scope of small-scale literature
tour showdown. Hiding the conflict will not make anyone better.
We should not hush up the situation, but at least discuss it openly.
Therefore, let me speak.
We will have to start with the report of the respected Andrei Mikhailovich. For-
I would like to point out right away that I was not present at the discussion in Repino, because
I have only the text of Alexander Shchego for objections to the speaker -
Lev (with whom I agree on almost everything), so if according to
I will repeat to someone who doesn’t know me - I apologize.
Number of errorsthe speaker is against truth and logic -
but it's surprising. I want to object from the very first lines and non-stop.
but... Of course, the current right of every writer “to publish everything
what he wants" is by no means an impossibility of being published. ("I call upon spirits
I can from the abyss! - And I can, and everyone can do it. The only question is,
Do they respond to the call?"). Of course, the Great Confrontation of literature
the tour of fiction and functionaries of the Young Guard continued
not “almost thirty years”, but less than twenty (from 1974 to 1991)
and ended not in creative defeat, but in the fact that the editor V. Shche-
Rbakov was simply thrown out of the gates of his own publishing house.
skaya division of the Komsomol inheritance (deprived of the blessed
the umbilical cord of the WTO MPF to independent existence turned out to be
auxiliary). Of course, the results of the invasion of the English-speaking "tsunami"
affected ALL domestic science fiction writers, but to float to the market
It was the primitive specialists who were the first to be able to create a new surface,
either debugged new mechanisms of “self-publishing”, or took root
in book series whose compilers could not or did not want to
lick, sorry, forget-me-not from shit.
The analysis of the current situation is equally vulnerable. Declared, admitted
stim that "we simply cannot compete with English-language science fiction
able." Who is “we”, with what kind of fiction? It doesn't matter
- who. The concept of “English-language fiction” is immediately replaced
completely different - "massiveUSA fiction", after which it is stated,
Why should a Russian writer compete with some Harrison?
There’s no point in trying: firstly, it’s technically impossible, and secondly,
shameful. What if not with Harrison? And if with Bradbury, Bollard,
Vonnegut, Le Guin? Oh, my fault, you can’t work with Le Guin: it’s “dre-
poor", this is the one who has "a certain alien alternately
is either a man or a woman." Is that what the novel "The Left Hand" is about?
"Darkness" is a separate question. But categoricalness! But conceit! But
methodology - evaluating a fiction book based on its subject matter!" No
reason for artistic expression" - and that’s all. And if
who is there? But the word has already been said, a single opinion has been elevated to
Absolutely, the program of the event does not provide for appeal. (B
“The Truth about Barmaleyevka” was even cooler. This is where about "The Saga of Timo-
fairy" E. Filenko: "Stolyarov said that reading a book with such na-
title cannot. And I didn’t read it.” And to this day, by the way, I haven’t collected
Yes. However, here we have, it seems, a humorous genre.)
What conclusions can be drawn from all this? Russian writers -
science fiction writers (of course, only real ones!) should organize
and leave the mass book market without panic, giving it to the distributors
torment for American hacks, and move straight to
Great Literature. This is where there will be far fewer readers,
but then you can consider that you are competing with Marquez. From abroad
onwe sorted it out quickly, now it’s time to clean up in our own home
tidy order. And for starters, feel the difference between talent-
that and mediocrity.
"If we maintain this difference, if the sea of mediocre literature
rature will not dissolve us one by one if we, as we now do,
they say, we distance ourselves - at least in the minds of qualified
bathroom reader - from the slop that now litters the trays and
counters, then we will survive both together and separately." Correct
me, if you don’t understand something, but what kind of pigs can be qualified?
a specialized reader, if he is already now, on his own, without accepting a specialized
social measures are not able to distance Stolyarov from Lazarchuk
from Gulyakovsky and Golovachev? And if he is able to do this -
then why the whole set of imperatives: “he must know...choose
he should... the distance should be subconsciously felt by him"? Well
This is how he seems to feel and choose. Because he reads and
thinks. Reads - whenever possible literary benign with
from his point of view, production (and to increase it it is necessary to master
market, and not shy away from it). Thinks - if possible
head and without directive efforts from the outside. Or am I wrong?
Now about the distancing mechanism."These are the corresponding cri-
tical articles... these are speeches and interviews... and, of course, this,
first of all (! - V.K.), literary awards that distinguish him
or another author from facelessWednesday".Actually with the arrangement
The priorities here could be debated. And a certain young man -
a activist once said that Bradbury was a mediocre writer.
satellite precisely because I have never received any “Hugh-
go" with "Nebulas". But going abroad with "MG" is not a decree for us, so about
we must.
It is very important, the report says, who exactly, under what
authority of the jury, in what way and according to what criteria it awards
something honorable. Error is unacceptable, because, "awarding the prize,
We seem to be telling our readers: this is good. This is the best thing
exists in Russian science fiction." Here Andrei Mikhailovich completed
phrase, while I want to clarify after the comma: "from the point
from the point of view of us - the people who award this particular prize." This, Mr.
Yes, my, a very fundamental amendment, otherwise we are dealing with pre-
claims to almost divine infallibility. Otherwise you'll have to
also distance ourselves (sorry!) from the logic of well-known
ng characters: “We are great! We are free! We are worthy of admiration
Sorry! Worthy of admiration like no other people in the jungle! We are all
We say so, it means it’s true!”
And again the speaker calls for responsibility. Of course, with no
It’s easier for a qualified reader: if he couldn’t move the axle
pouring something from the best examples of Russian science fiction is not
trouble, let him continue to develop spiritually, but for now he reads “Ange-
face". And herequalified (apparently able to read
text of any complexity without harm to the health) of the reader
you can't eat. A terrible picture: he opens the essay of some
laureate and discovers that it is “secondary, gray, drawn-out,...
cut not only by the Strugatskys, but also by Bilenkin and Dnep-
rov, I’m not even talking about English-speaking science fiction writers." (And this one is good
regressive series!) And so that such embarrassment does not arise with the reader -
went, we need to sort out the existing fantastic awards,
complementing them with just one more - but the final and only one -
but true.
Actually, this is where the most important part of the report begins -
explanation why the professional literary award "Stran-
nick" is the best. (In my perception, the entire report turned out
detailed declaration on this topic). So, the climax. How to do
to give the prize to the most important, the best, the most prestigious? Self-
rem expert council of a dozen good writers. (Who decides
that the writer is good? Probably another good writer? And who...
Well, that's enough, that's enough. This opinion arises in the professional environment -
Yes, understand?) So, if these ten writers unanimously call
some good thing - then cheers and caps in the air. What if it's bad
If they call, then a hearse will arrive at the entrance and five minutes to get ready. Pros-
that's graceful. What if opinions differ? Oh, and that's taken into account: "Controversy
occur only in those rare cases whenthe book ends up in
the interval separating fiction from mediocre literature
Noah. But the very presence of a book in this interval is undoubtedly already significant.
speaks about its literary localization.” How many voices are there?
enough to send someone's text into this right-of-way
around the highway of Real Literature? God knows. It may become-
Yes, and one is enough. Does the writer speak well? Known
matter, the road to becoming an expert is forbidden to others. Unsatisfied? Yes, that's it-
it didn’t look good. The topic there, let’s say, didn’t excite me or the title was
didn't seem artistic enough. Well, so be it.
Conduct during the interval, do not give coats!
(Actually, it is clear that the methods for saving domestic literature
ration fiction set out in the report can, with literal
their observance will lead only to a catastrophic loss of reading
television audience and to the impoverishment of the diversity of science fiction itself.
I'm not even talking about publishing problems. Fortunately, in practice
the matter looks somewhat different, so let’s not worry about the problem
in the depths of science fiction, let’s talk again about the “Wanderer” award - there
There seemed to be no deviations from the guidelines of the report. But first-
la - about the predecessors of this award.)
Let us remember that everyone more or less famous and of any importance
The most fantastic prizes can be divided into reader's and
writing. In addition, there is such a special bonusone reader and writer, like “The Bronze Snail” by B.N. Strugats-
whom. Reader's awards (as of May 1994): "Interpresscon",
"Great Ring", "Start". Writers (except for "The Wanderer"):
"Aelita" and Belyaevskaya. Some of them are quite prosperous, not
who are going through bad times. The prestige of the organization varies
tors and the degree of fame of the awards. But something single can be identified
pour without difficulty: readiness to coexist with others and lack
twee initially given confrontation. I made it here, you see
maybe a kind of good tradition has developed: the presentation of “one’s” pre-
mia not as a negation of others, but as part of a single system, as one
one of many, the strength of which lies in mutual complementarity. Be considered
birth and wealth (at least openly, publicly)
It seemed like it was somehow not accepted. Of course, gentlemen, writers, people
special, among them a certain “report card” could well have developed
about ranks" and it is unlikely that the delivery or non-delivery of "this" and not "that"
were perceived as completely painless. But now I'm first and foremost
I'm talking about reader perception. About qualified readers.
It is the absence of showing off and the desire to confront the challenge
But, among other things, experienced fans have a fairly loyal
attitude towards the Aelita Award. And this despite the fact that not a single one (not a single one!)
the award did not leave, in my opinion, the notorious “feeling of deep
whom satisfaction": those were givenon time, but in the wrong company,
so - it seems to be right, but not at all for that, and not at all
shouldn't... Everyone remembers such conversations. But people with whom
The very existence of the prize was associated with the name, they loved and respected -
“Aelita” lived by their authority. (It wasn’t about prestige here
business - the presentation of the prize was only part of our unified CELEBRATION -
CA. I didn’t want to notice the obvious shortcomings, because I was right
edifice, there was an atmosphere of mutual friendship, there was a need to
wa to visit Bugrov, to give my regards to “Pathfinder.” She was...fresh
fond memory to you, Vitaly Ivanovich.)
And the authority of writers was not determined by the number of different
figurines. We valued their books long before authors were lied to.
we were talking about something like that. We continued to appreciate them if nothing else
was awarded at all. Has at least one writer been exalted to heaven?
just because of the mere fact of owning this or that award? Wouldn't-
about this. Yes, of course, all these differences made it possible to talk about sym-
pathies, draw conclusions, confirm achievements, support,
encourage But have the Strugatsky brothers, say, become more great?
what about the many awards received? No, it was due to the bonuses
great honor, their status could rise from this. Exactly
so - and not the other way around!
Besides, was there really that much (if we don’t touch on “Aelita”)?
examples of dissatisfaction with laureate lists? Let's remember though
would be the firstlaureates of the "Start" award! (This is later, much later,
the flow of belated “debuts” of mature authors has dried up). Is there a lot
the names of the laureates of the “Great Ring”, “Interpress-
Skona" or the lesser-known Belyaev Prize? However, yes, of course
privately - Vasily Zvyagintsev. Three awards last year, plus, it seems,
something else foreign. Shame on the jungle! Has anyone tried
thoroughly analyze the phenomenon of these awards (very
different people and using different methods for identifying laureates), instead
instead of looking for simplified answers, branding the jury’s bad taste
Belyaev Prize and "Aelita" and writing off the voting results for
"Interpresscon-93" on a dashing bandit raid of some semi-mythical
what kind of party of inveterate fans of Zvyagintsev? But this is a topic for another day
conversation.
So, if we leave the incident with Zvyagintsev alone (possibly
I don’t believe the value of the double), if we admit that the long-term history
Sverdlovsk-Ekaterinburg awards before our eyes, alas, are
increases its current, then where now lies the danger for the present
any fiction? From which awards, from which names in nominations and
should the jury distance itself? Not from relics known to everyone
"Young Guard"? In the final lists of the named awards - entirely
and next to yours. Fourth generation. Maleevka-Dubulti. New fan
tasticism in its various manifestations. Or - they come across and NOT AT ALL
yours? Now the former ones are theirs. Notinvested with their trust. Not
Young Guards, no - socially close, but not the elite, not inhabited
bodies of Olympus. Is it now necessary to deal with them?
It is easy and pleasant to say that none of these people will ever
will stand in the first rank of Russian science fiction writers" that they are not con-
competitive by definition. Well, how does some of the proscription
on the lists will try to get into the nomination lists, will be able to seriously
Is it difficult to compete and - I’m afraid to say - to get ahead? No, really -
whether there were any bonuses - ordinary weak people, unreliable and inclined
to mistakes. But here in "The Wanderer" the dubious writers (and in their
number localized in the "interval") should not receive any
I forge. Because "The Wanderer" exists - according to the original plan (not
everyone seems to understand) - a premium of the highest grade and incomprehensible
impeccability. Because with the advent of this award, all others
to a single one are automatically relegated to a secondary position
auxiliary (if they are going to be tolerated at all, of course). A
Why argue: only one sun should shine in the sky! Here on
"Interpresscon-94" we observed the planned launch of this sun-
ka...
Let's be honest: the weight of this prize for the world of realistic
literature (non-fiction writers, publishers, critics, readers)
Li) should not be exaggerated. The task of rehabilitating the "en masse" genre
has long been removed from the agenda. The spilled sea of hackwork (ours or
imported)will not become shallow at all from the most frantic advertising of sa-
our highly artistic (at least in terms of goals, at least in terms of results)
bonuses. How does the presence of special fantasy awards affect
passage in reputable general literary editions of texts by Rybako-
va, Pelevin or Stolyarov? I suspect not. They're just
are published and little by little compete, if not with Marquez and Bul-
Thus, then with fellow realists. Rybakov State Prize and "Maly
Booker" Pelevin is at least called. And the rest of the regalia?
An authoritative jury? Yes, be it for connoisseurs and fan connoisseurs
tastic and a hundred times more authoritative - one of the same nine jury
"Wanderer" will be considered an absolute authority outside of science fiction? Well,
say, Boris Natanovich. Are there any other candidates?
Summary for producers and consumers of non-literary opuses
Voting on "The Wanderer" is also not a criterion. (We’ve already talked about this
We went by experience with the Young Guard).
This means that before the recognition of the prize (not books, not writers’ personalities,
prizes!) still go and go, if we are talking about Great Literature
re. There is no talk of low literature at all. So no matter how
vori, and in the foreseeable future the prize and its laureates will be significant
all for the same qualified science fiction readers.
Meanwhile, a qualified reader does not perceive well
tying anything - even if the imposition is a cover-up
is recognized by the reputation of the BigMasters. This reader is familiar with the
traditions of awarding other prizes and is able to determine the assessment
prestige of the award. This reader knows that the authority of the prize is
is driven by many years of work, and not by the simple desire of its creators.
He, the reader, will never consider the ultimate truth
the collective opinion of the jury, albeit consisting of unconditional
leaders of Russian science fiction and people of impeccable moral character
honors (one must still remember about the incomplete coincidence of the specifics of reading -
television and writer's perception, about the vulnerability of criteria
assessments, about the complex relationships between schools of fiction and individual
famous personalities, about many, many nuances).
I do not intend to question the specific results of the award.
of the "Wanderers", unless I say it again: a collision with the so-called
the self-rewarding of a good and respected publishing house
It should have been foreseen and prevented. This, unfortunately, is not the only one
miscalculation - and it's not their fault. It shouldn't be about the results. Speech
should be related to the event and to those who attend it
walked. (This idea is not mine, but I completely agree with it.)
When the audience was perceived (perhaps even without a clear
knowledge of this) only as extras called upon to fill the hall when
the status of the prize, on the contrary, was perceived with excessive seriousness,
Only what happened could have happened. In addition to everything from
it was really badThe entire direction of the performance has been prepared. That-
The festive turning on of the new luminary failed. There was an electrical
mental reaction of rejection - also because, among other things,
the ongoing action could disrupt the already formed atmosphere
feru, if you like - the aura of "Interpresscon", but could not replace it
thread itself and displace it altogether. All that remains is the feeling of a huge
tactlessness that happened before our eyes. The event was tried
WAIT, the public did not want to wait, and as a result of excessive
pressure in the action mechanism, something cracked and broke off. Feeling
measures failed. And those who honestly tried to improve the situation of the writers
it was a pity. Even the seemingly inexhaustible gift of persuasion Bo-
Natanovich's rice turned out to be not enough. He tried to explain
why "The Wanderer" is a good award, but we were presented with the best
I smell...
Feeling like some kind of Lord of the Sun is probably very pleasant.
tno. But also very responsible. Having prepared the "Wanderer" in advance
Lev's regalia, its creators took upon themselves the exorbitant
responsibility. Any miscalculations - from technical to ethical -
appeared a hundredfold magnified, and mistakes were not forgiven.
(Although the names of the errors might not be the ones actually reported.
I really should have said it). But most of them could
avoid. Alas...
And the next day (and it’s good that after, but not before) powerful
the final chord of the mentionedrelations Andrey's report was made
Mikhailovich Stolyarov about the literary war. Building a reputation
ended. Needless to say, this was not what was planned at all.
reputation?
Apparently, I need to at least briefly say about the motives for my exit
from the nomination committee of "The Wanderer" (By the way, an indecent op-
a little bit coming from Oberham exactly in response to my remark about you-
course, belongs, naturally, not to me. This is like the already famous one:
“It’s a bitch to live in this world, gentlemen!” But let’s talk about serious things.)
It was not my intention at all to exert moral pressure on anyone.
to set an example or to make an impression. Just a wish
working on the commission is gone. Yes, I was listed there nominally, not
having taken no part in the formation of the lists, although repeatedly
tried to do this. Perhaps there is no time for all sorts of coordination?
was enough, or the seriousness of the award really excludes the right
ktika absentee participation. I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter. And they also had
me claims under the Regulations on "Strannik" (materials to me Andrey
Chertkov provided, although not all). Let's say about the degree of influence
jury on the work of the nomination commission or on the feasibility of Ve-
of the Supreme Court of Wanderers. But, as it turned out, everything happened a long time ago
decided, agreed upon and accepted. And between then and now about these pre-
documents, it seems to me, it is worth arguing, and not only about
organizational part, but also according to the methodology itselfcalculations.
(Who can explain to me how the fact that a member
the jury has the right to give two authors an equal number of points and at the same time
really - different places?) Then the thought already appeared: is it not in vain
Do I take a place on this commission? Well, what about the delivery procedure?
what I heard a lot after it (except, I repeat, the report of A. Stolyarov
and other official events of that day), strengthened this idea
thoroughly. There is a simple ethical norm: if you can get out of
structure, the principles of which you do not share and cannot change -
do it.
That's almost all. That is, of course, it is possible further
It’s better to dissect all sorts of words and actions of those days, but most importantly,
In my opinion, it’s already clear. Except for one thing: what should we do now?
Should I get involved in this war or should I keep everyone from fighting? To the fullest
power to trigger an “ethical distancing mechanism” or prize-
let good writers come to their senses and get busy instead of organizing
actions and campaigns as your main job? Reproach
a newly created award (and at the same time - a bunch of - and the corresponding
publishing house) or try to convince someone that the
melon is a mortal sin and what comes from the showdown between readers and writers
(as, indeed, with publishers) no one will win?
I don't know. The conflict involves so many undoubtedly respected
by me (and only by me?) people to support any single
The initial solution is to cut anywayalive.
We have to think. We have to argue. We must listen to everyone who has
what to say. And you also need to remember the simple formula of one of
heroes of the Strugatskys:
"The main thing in our position is not to commit actions that
We will be ashamed later."
July 8, 1994
Share your thoughts about the article