Articles - Dirty laundry, or the history of the bronze bubble.

                      Svyatoslav LOGINOV

                         DIRTY FROM THE HUT,
                or THE HISTORY OF THE BRONZE BUBBLE

   I decided to write about the “Wanderer” award. Lo and behold: I’m writing, like, about
“The Wanderer,” but for some reason it turns out to be about Stolyarov. Against fate
no matter what, I’ll write about Stolyarov, and “The Wanderer,” maybe in
At the end of the article I’ll kick in passing.
   It would be possible, having admitted dislike for Mr. Stolyarov, to take
then scissors and cut off the beginning of the article, leaving only a note about
"Wanderer". But I won't do this. Everything is too tight
The literary squabbles of recent years are tied to this man.
The gray cardinal quietly begins to undermine the authority of Strugatsky
no matter what, and I don’t want to put up with this. Inflated authorities should be dis-
to get married, even at the risk of being branded a bad person, I use
schim "marginal methods".
   So, Mr. Stolyarov wanted to be called a great writer. Neither-
there is nothing wrong with such a desire, although it is a troublesome and
ungrateful. You write and write, but not only are you not included in the classics
They enroll, but refuse to read at all. But, as they say,
“there are no roads impassable for valor.” We inform you of the recipe: “How to become
classic."
   The recipe is as simple as moo and consists of only two ingredients -
Comrade: a) active participation in the literary struggle (in order to humiliate fellow
pernikov); b) a well-organized advertising campaign (so that
elevate yourself).And, of course, you must have at least a minimum
starting capital. However, ten years ago it was possible to earn it
It’s not difficult - a couple of stories in periodicals, and you’ve already been noticed.
   At the beginning of his journey, Mr. Stolyarov’s advertising company consisted of
unbridled self-praise, and the literary struggle is out of rudeness
towards those whom he considered his opponents. Here Mr.
Stolyarov is not original. They say Bushkov behaved the same way. That's it-
Only he chose the Strugatskys as his enemies and as a result ended up
in the position of the notorious Moska. G. Stolyarov acted smarter.
He was rude only when he felt that it could be done without impunity.
zany. I don’t like Mr. Stolyarov since then and have remained silent before
de only because he promised Boris Natanovich not to wash dirty linen
from the hut. Sorry, Boris Natanovich, but the rubbish has now accumulated
so much that he climbs into the windows. It's better to say everything directly than behind
back. Writers are sensitive, and as a result, Mr. Sto-
Lyarova are doing brilliantly.

  Dialogue:
  - With whom B.N. wants to settle scores, he sets on him
boys from his seminar.
  - Whom? Name the names!
  - Stolyarov.
  - Stolyarov is not the whole Seminar yet. You spoke in plural
number.
  - One Stolyarov is enough.

   Result: in the eyes of some, a shadow has been cast on the Strugatskys,
a blow to their authority (Bushkov failed to do this), in the eyes of others
these Stolyarov are the most faithful proselytemasters, one might say - for-
equestrian heir. Q.E.D.
   And then came our hero’s finest hour. Circumstances
This case is widely known and should not be repeated. I'll just say
that in some way Medvedev and Bushkov created Stolyarov and, consequently,
I have to admit, this was their most successful sabotage. In the eyes of the
the majority of the Strugatsky seminar became associated with
uncompromising fighter Stolyarov.
   In my memory, there have already been cases when one of the members of the
minara tried to ride into the seminar on horseback and rush to his own
goals. Each time nothing came of it. Once upon a time in Great
information signed by B.N. was even transferred to the Ring, saying:
saying that anyone attempting to speak on behalf of the seminar should
be immediately disavowed.
   Taught by the experience of the fallen, Mr. Stolyarov never spoke out from
named after the seminar. He usually speaks on behalf of “great literature”,
and the seminar is held as if as a free application.
   As a result, it’s worth driving a couple of hundred kilometers away from St. Petersburg.
meters in any direction and meet with any representative
fandom, how the same thing happens with fatal inevitability
conversation:

  Dialogue 2:
  - How can you go to your seminar? This is the same meeting
aggressive mediocrities parasitizing on Strugatsky. No one
there are no thoughts, topics, or words there, but at least there is ambitionmore than enough!
  - Who is this, may I ask? Names!
  - Stolyarov!
  - More.
  - ...
  - Maybe Rybakov?
  - No, Rybakov is a smart man, but he hardly writes.
  - Izmailov?
  - Izmailov is not a science fiction writer. He writes action films.
  - Then, Shchegolev?
  - Is Shchegolev a member of the seminar? Stolyarov expelled him...

   That's right, Boris Natanovich! Now it’s clear who Lenin is here?
We say Strugatsky, we mean Stolyarov. Yes, of course, Sto-
Lyarov looks very much like the Strugatskys, the teacher should be pleased with this
tno. Remember how Krapivin pushes for no relation to
literature that does not have Iv. Tyaglova. A copycat is always cuter
successor. And the result? Already walking, whispered, ka-
lamburchik: “If you plan for so long, you will become a carpenter.”
   I purposely do not name names, for the sole reason that a considerable
number of people promising to punch Stolyarov in the face, with
personal meeting respectfully shakes his hand, if it happens before
the master's hand is allowed.
   These are the fruits of the first part of the program “How to become a classic”.
   However, political activity alone could lead to a writing career
you can’t make it up these days. Need advertising. G. Stolyarov understands this as
no one else. It's funny to watch him start dancing
when he sees television, how he strives to get into the frame, to find himself
in front of the microphone. However, all this is quite innocent. I don't either
I'll hide behind myself ashamedlypalm from the blue eye. But there is
and other advertising. It’s no longer so harmless and, by the way, very dangerous.
   It is done as follows:
   A group of faithful people is selected and through them the fandom is launched -
there is information that the writer such and such writes (wrote) great
some work (title attached). Result: none of this
I haven’t read the novel, but everyone is already praising it, because everyone is pleased
show your awareness and involvement in the great world
this.
   Stolyarov used this technique repeatedly and as a result
severely burned. After all, sooner or later the vaunted novel will see the light
and if it is not as good as promised, then the reader will have a
There is a syndrome of disappointed expectations. And the novels of Mr. Stolyarov, my-
Simply put, they do not reach the required level. Mastery? Yes,
he has it. Professionalism? As many as you like! But for skillfully
With the phrase made, cold indifference is visible. And the reader,
a real reader does not forgive this.
   And here in the Interpresscon nominations are the works of Mr. Stolyarov
crawled down. The much-praised Epistle to the Corinthians received
seven votes out of 106 possible. It’s easy to identify all these seven
and I dare say that there is not a single simple reader in it.
   Who is to blame: the writer who cannot write, or the reader who
who wants to read what is interesting? For Mr. Stolyarov, the question here is
no dew. This is where Mr.'s quarrel beginsStolyarov with fandom.
   But the trouble is, a great writer must bask in the glory
including receiving bonuses. Interpresscon has been compromised
himself in the eyes of a genius, and “Snail” is awarded to B.N. and, therefore, not
manageable. Today your boss loves you, but tomorrow? And then into the light
"The Wanderer" appears - a prize created especially for Mr. Sto-
Lyarova
   Here the corrosive reader has the right to shout: “Stop!”
   The jury of "The Wanderer" includes excellent writers and honest people.
A complex system of scoring points has been invented, which is calculated by
The new computer is checked by the incorruptible Mikhail Uspensky. What
could there be any complaints? And yet, I dare to say that in the present
In general, the "Wanderer" award is completely controlled and doomed
to be awarded specifically to Mr. Stolyarov.
   To prove this statement, you will have to do a little
an excursion into the field of aesthetics.
   It has long been known that there are two schools of science fiction. With some
The second approximation can be called “the Strugatsky school” and “the school
Medvedev". In fact, these are not schools, but two aesthetic movements
tions, covering all literature and, perhaps, all art. Not
The Strugatskys came up with their direction. And it won’t end with Medvedev
"Medvedev school" And, of course, the bulk of fiction
dangles somewhere in the middle between the two poles, unable to join
to none. But now let's look at extreme cases.
   Let's leave it asideall sorts of labels like: “good literature
- bad literature”, “real art is pseudo-art”.
Who besides Stolyarov will decide what is true and what is not?
Previously, we hoped that the market would put everything in its place:
They will buy the good ones, but not the bad ones. G. Stolyarov is in this
misconception until today. But as Alexander said correctly
Shchegolev, books by Malyshev, Gulyakovsky, Golovachev are being snapped up
with a whistle. And even Petukhov and Kazantsev disagree better than the great
go Stolyarov. How can this be?
   There seems to be only one criterion for determining artistic
the essence of a fantastic work, and even then this requires state-
yes. The method is extremely simple. In their youth, 90% of people read science fiction.
So, a person who grew up on science fiction of one direction,
subsequently either does not rise in his passions above “An-
zheliki", or will never return to science fiction, rightly so
considering it low-grade reading. A man who grew up on the Strugatskys,
reads Dostoevsky with pleasure and just as easily switches again
goes to fantasy. There are exceptions, of course, but they are overwhelming
minority.
   A couple of guesses as to why this happens.
   A writer, even a bad one, is still, as a rule, more educated and
smarter than the bulk of readers, if only because he knows how
the word “karova” is spelled, and what “existential analysis” is. But when
it can either go downto the level of perception of the mentioned
“the bulk”, or, to the best of one’s strength and talent, try to raise
reader to your level. This concerns style (“make us a beautiful
gray!"), images ("blond friends and red-haired enemies"), construction
plot, problems, author's ultimate task, etc. This is where the hidden
difference between two aesthetics, and phrases like: “bad - good” -
from the evil one.
   There is another type of aesthetics: an author who doesn’t give a damn
on the reader, an author writing for himself or for a very narrow
circle of friends. In extreme cases, such an author is not at all
a writer, because a writer does not exist without readers. Sometimes,
however, it happens that the “narrow circle” are those people who
awards are judged. Then instead of "Non-Writer" is, in the expression
Sartre, "pocket writer" - bronze bubble. We will not decrees-
don't touch it with your finger, otherwise it will burst prematurely.
   But let’s return to our laureates, or rather, to the “Wanderer” award.
   It would be strange and even suspicious if the jury seriously
considered works written in an alien aesthetic
key. As they say, Messrs. Medvedevs are asked not to worry.
   If this were the only limitation, there would be no bonus
there would be no complaints. But...
   Within each current there are many more thin streams. And from
The organizers chose only one of them. This is politically ang-
fattened works written in the spiritrejection of our non-
long past. This narrowness is determined by the composition of the jury itself,
but if the jury is changed, it will be a completely different award.
The only disengaged author among the Wanderers is Zhenya Lu-
kin, nothing can change. Rybakov, with his heightened senses,
of justice, Uspensky, accustomed to mercilessly and mockingly
analyze everything and everyone, they feel the narrowness of their positions, but,
being biased authors, they honestly vote for what they consider
melt the best in their favorite genre. The rest are completely serious -
We don’t even understand what hole we’ve driven ourselves into. (Oh B.N. I think
I lie, for his ways are mysterious).
   And since in such a narrow area there cannot be much labor
decent writers, then the prize is really doomed to be awarded
the members of the jury themselves, and not all of them. They will never receive "Countries"
nickname" Lukins, Kudryavtsev, Filenko. There is also no prize in sight for Leo
Vershinin, a strong author (it’s not for nothing that Arkady Natanovich wrote
sal preface to his book) and politically engaged, but...
in the wrong direction. And if you look into the recent past, you can
Can you imagine how the lyrical stories of Ko-
Lupaev or Krapivin's stories, Larionov's "Chakra of the Centaur",
Stern's "Whose Planet?", Shefner's "The Man with Five No"?
Five times - no!
   If the rules of the award honestly state what it is awarded for,
there wouldn't be any for herclaims. No one was outraged, but...
where Pelevin was awarded the Golden Ostap. And if the most section
one of the Utah girls gave someone the promised "Osino-
vy count" - I’m sure the audience would have applauded joyfully.
   On the other hand, if this, awarded by a narrow crowd
the prize was awarded privately, say, in the apartment of one of the members
jury, as Nikitin, who rewards himself, does, then others dare-
would rise above the ambitions of the organizers, and no one would feel sad
I'm offended. Just a pocket writer Stolyarov hands himself
pocket bonus. But the presentation was held in front of the most crowded
and the most respected of the current con. As a result - grievances, scan-
gave...
   That's all I wanted to say. With Mr. Stolyarov, it seems,
everything is clear, but as for “The Wanderer”... If the award changes its
status is one thing, if it remains the same, then it will have to become
the most pompous and most disrespected of all awards of this kind.
I don’t know how to change the status of the “Wanderer” and, moreover, I’m afraid
I am sure that the majority of the jury and Mr. Stolyarov personally will not wish anything
no changes.
   That is why I publicly and in advance rejected the questionable
honor to ever receive it.