***** A FIRST DOZEN INCONVENIENT QUESTIONS FOR ANDREI GENNADIEVICH ****
*********** LAZARCHUK, MEMBER OF THE JURY OF THE "WANDERER" PRIZE **********
Guys!
Your questions really turned out to be inconvenient - in that sense -
le that I was uncomfortable, embarrassed to answer them, and that
Typically, I wasn’t embarrassed for myself, no. Therefore what I
I answered, I didn’t send it. It was boring, boring and stupid
(however, what is the question, is the answer). But leave everything as it is
to eat is unworthy. So let me go through it one more time, not quite
point by point and not entirely by topic.
1. I come from a fandom myself, and therefore I don’t want to discuss this topic.
mu.
2, 3. I have no opinion on this matter - because I
this is ABSOLUTELY UNINTERESTING.
4. I, like Shchegolev, am extremely indignant that Stolyarov believes
the number one figure is himself, not me. As for the fandom, then
in it, as far as I know, all possible
opinions.
5, 6. It’s too early to talk about comparative prestige, let’s wait
eleven years old. From the point of view of the clarity of the selection criteria for me
"Aelita" and "Belyaevskaya" are doubtful. Both professional
Mias, in my opinion, are technically impeccable (almost, but about that
another time); of the readers' books, "The Great Ring" seems to me more
thoughtful and balanced. As for "IPK", I repeat,
awarded by a very limited circle of fanselites, personally
invited to the event; the club principle is not bad - but why
members of this club so viciously attack members of another club,
writing? Why did no one see the absolute similarity in the
the principles of forming the jury of “Strannik” and “IPK”? Or, as usual,
Is a knot more noticeable than a log? Next: Rybakov’s non-participation is offensive
novel in the final battle does not at all indicate that
the principles of "The Wanderer" are no good. If there are eight writers,
working in the genre and having a name, placed a certain work
fourth on the list (without consulting with each other, without testing
facing neither informational nor emotional pressure from the outside,
since the first stage of voting was absentee) - this is about something
says. Understand: writers also evaluate a thing from the inside out: not that...
only HOW IT HAPPENED, but also HOW IT WAS DONE. And from a writer's point
view, Stolyarov’s novel, unloved by readers, IS DONE BETTER. I am so
I can’t, even if I really want to - that’s one of the evaluation criteria.
It is clear that readers do not fit this standard - therefore, different
There will always be disagreements (as there will be - occasionally - coincidences of views).
And one more thing: since these are inconvenient questions, here is an inconvenient answer for you: after
voting on the IPC, they came up to me three times and said this: because
excuse me, I like your piece better, but Nikolaev walked around the room -
He took out his frame and soul - he demanded that they vote for Rybakov. For-
sword that insystem of the "Strannik" such a situation is impossible in the case of
principle. And it’s not interesting, understand.
7, 8, 9. It is symptomatic that among potential non-recipients
"The Wanderer" you mentioned one of its creators: Sergei Ivano-
va. Agree that this indicates the error of your original
positions: that “The Wanderer” “is awarded only to authors writing in
strictly defined manner", "direction usually identified
with the works of Stolyarov." Where did you get this from? Who transported it?
announced? Or did you mix the theses of Andrei Mikhailovich’s report with
bonus regulations? No, please: soup separately, flies separately -
but... Read the beginning of question 9: the answer is already there.
You guys are strange: you invent God knows what, but
then you demand an answer from others.
10. It was necessary to start with someone.
11. If you promise and don’t come, this is a manifestation of exceptionalism.
no ethical subtlety, then... well. Regarding the amendments of Bula-
regard to the Regulations, then, in my opinion, they did not improve, but worsened
him - precisely from the ethical side. After all, the anonymity of the newsletter has disappeared
Leteney. I will insist on my version: the author automatically
gives himself the highest score, but when calculating, the highest score is not
counts.
12. I completely agree with you: yes, it would be a beautiful woman-
stoma. But then the first place would be taken by “North-West”, which has little
the fact that he published fewer books by Russian authors in general andlaureates
various awards in particular (this is the main criterion for the work of a publishing house)
tion), but after the story with Perumov, he generally deserves the company
hands.
13. So, it’s like this: initially such an intention, of course,
there wasn't. But the further you go, the more it arises. Let those who wish
to be insulted - will be insulted. In the best of their feelings:
sense of self-worth. By the way, who is this Fleishman?
0. And without the protocol: in Mr. Vladimirsky’s article the words
va: "wild barbaric Russia." This is a real insult, without
circumlocution. A boy who, by the wealth of his mind, carries occult white-
letristics for review by a Marxist philosopher (and others simply
they didn’t assign penalties, or even imprisoned) - and he’s not at all surprised
that he has mastered only the “physiological level” - it may well be
think so. Yes, for him there is only a physiological level
"Omon Ra", ten pages of retelling of "Monks under the Moon", group
a new get-together of arrogant writers during the division of bronze
figurines - a man of a pack simply cannot organically represent
It is clear that people may strive not to snatch for themselves, but to give to others.
Smerdyakov in its purest form - even the vocabulary is the same.
09.29.94. A. Lazarchu
Share your thoughts about the article