***** A DAM’S DOZEN INDEPENDENT QUESTIONS FOR BORIS NATANOVYCH ****
********** STRUGATSKY, MEMBER OF THE JURY OF THE "WANDERER" PRIZE *********
1. Here, as I realized quite recently, there is (was) a lack of
understanding. The fact is that initially I understood the word “fandom” as
all the fandom is small, that is, the crowd of thousands of fans from science fiction
ki, readers, consumers of spiritual food called “fantasy”
ka", and consumers in the majority (Sturgeon's law!)
unpretentious and indiscriminate.
With all due respect to this diverse crowd (and I really...
I seriously treat ALL READERS with due respect: in the end
after all, they are the ones who pay me for my work), despite everything I have to do with them
respect, however, I could not find a place for them in the structure
"Interpresscon", which I saw primarily as a MEETING
PROFESSIONALS. Professional writers, professional publishing
lei, artists, booksellers, filmmakers, literary critics
etc. - that is, not just people who get a thrill from communication
with science fiction, and those who deal with it professionally, for whom
so it has become an essential part of life and an area of application
creative forces. It was these people, in my opinion, who should have
it is good to meet at Interpresscon to exchange information
tion, discuss the current situation, talk about Art and the Universe,
summarize the year and awardthe most worthy.
Only recently (primarily thanks to the patient
clarifications of the publishers of "Oberham") I realized that FANDOM in modern
understanding of this word is precisely a community of people who have made
science fiction is a part of my life, not just reading it, but - studying it -
talking, analyzing, publicly discussing it, and also trading it,
translating it and even publishing it. THIS fandom is a must
to be part of Interpresscon, and he is already part of it -
this is visible to the naked eye.
2-4. Let's dot all the i's.
I have deep and sincere respect for Andrei Mikhailo-
I love Stolyarov, I highly appreciate his literary talent, I can’t help but
pay tribute to his remarkable organizational abilities -
there. I am certainly close and understandable to his creative style, although
when discussing general literary issues, he and I often remain
We, as they say, each have their own opinion. Among the best works
of our science fiction of the last decade, in my opinion, without
Without any doubt, both “Exorcism of the Demon” and “Messenger” will forever remain
"to the Corinthians" - as examples of literature of the highest class -
sa.
I also have deep and sincere respect for Alexander
Gennadievich Shchegolev, whom I consider (for a long time) as the most
perhaps a promising representative of the latest wave
our fiction. I always enjoy reading his new things,I always listen with interest to his non-standard performances at seven
nare, always believed that “Love of the Beast” and “Who Called Me?” - among
the best of the best recent science fiction works
and are capable of creating a good name for any author.
Both respected authors have long been and certainly established themselves as
writers, I simply don’t have any AESTHETIC differences between them
I see, and the main (maybe the only) advantage of Stolyarov
over Shchegolev there is an advantage of greater experience - an advantage
in, of course, essential, but, you see, transitory.
Having said the above, I want to emphasize that in no case
intends to take someone’s side in an issue that has arisen (overly harsh)
polemics, because both polemicists are EQUALLY close and dear to me.
I specifically re-read both reports now (in Oberkhamovsky
presentation). As before, I agree with most of Sto-
Lyarova
Yes, there are only TWO tastes in literature: good and bad.
(“mine” and “not mine”). No “objectivity” in literature and
there is no question.
Yes, only books about a person have the right to be called LITERATURE
and about his fate in society (in fact, this is what Stolyarov called
not "artistic").
Yes, a bad writer VERY OFTEN turns out to be a bad person
simultaneously (this is not the place to discuss this curious correlation)
tion, bitter and dangerous, but it is an “observational fact”, like
I would saynatural scientist).
Yes, the prestige of fantasy as an equal type of real literature
rature, belittled and continues to be systematically belittled by the fact
proof that V. Rybakov writes fiction - and Petukhov writes
science fiction, M. Weller writes science fiction - and Yu. Medvedev also writes
FANTASTIC...
A list of similarities between our points of view and Stolyarov’s can be found
it would be possible to continue. Isn’t this the circumstance that stems from
a strange assumption that Stolyarov is simply “voicing”
Strugatsky, and an even stranger assumption that Strugatsky
"accepts the point of view" of Stolyarov (one must understand - for lack of
your own)?
However, anyone who is open-minded and sufficiently competent
it is clear to the reader that the theses presented are not something fundamental
what’s new is that we—all of us!—have already spoken about all this more than once
(at the seminar, in particular) and wrote - in time immemorial, and
ten, and even twenty years ago.
What happened? Why is Stolyarov’s report (a sharp report, harsh-
subtle, I would say, even merciless) caused such a wave of protest-
that one? After all, in fact, it contained nothing except a statement
new reality and a call to all writers of democratic
directions to distance yourself from hacks, mediocrities and politicians
ethical scoundrels - distance themselves both aesthetically and ethically!
Of course, there are statements in the report that, in my opinion, are far from
notindisputable and even simply incorrect. For example, the idea that
“good” literature can be distinguished from “bad” literature using non-
which Expert Council seems to me to be completely erroneous
Noah. (I immediately imagined an Expert Council composed of
the greatest luminaries of cooking and tasting, who will tell me that
oatmeal is a delicious and healthy food product - ambrosia
and nectar of the gods! I won’t even argue with them, for me this
the problem does not exist: I HATE oatmeal, I have an idiocy towards it
Nice, I couldn’t bring myself to eat it even during the blockade!)
Accordingly, the idea is not based on anything at all
Stolyarov, as if the jury of the "Wanderer" award (or any other jury)
is able to unequivocally separate the tares from the grain and the lambs from the goats -
lishch. "If ten good writers say that the book is good -
That means she's good." What a misconception! This only means that
it corresponds to the literary tastes of THIS dozen, and nothing more
lee. And I undertake in any particular case to score ten at least
there are no good writers who, so to speak, “don’t like oatmeal”
- they love millet, but not oatmeal (although they are willing to admit it
wonderful nutritional and even taste qualities - if only they
They didn’t force her to eat).
No, I believe that the sharp reaction to Stolyarov’s report did not arise
from some of his controversial (or incorrect) statements, although many
withoutdoubts were offended for their loved ones Harrison and Ursula Le
Guin, towards whom Stolyarov was completely unjustifiably merciless.
From Alexander’s nervous, heart-written counter-report
Shchegolev, which contains more emotions than ideas (and vividly recalls
who gave me the dying cry of Gogol’s Ostap: “Father, where are you?
Do you hear?"), I extracted only one clearly defined thesis, complete
careful consideration. This is a thesis about the threat of current science fiction
side of the "new Bolsheviks" who seized power and are striving to
to grab everything for yourself and, first of all, the right to “allow and
"zat." And I wanted to cry out a-la Taras Bulba: “I hear you, son—
ku!" - I hear, but I don’t see, and most importantly, I don’t understand ANYTHING... What
threat? What Bolsheviks? Power - over what? Or - over whom?..
Is it really not clear that in the current conditions EVERYTHING is decided by the “sweet
a couple" - tandem PUBLISHER-BOOKSELLER? And there is only one cry-
book evaluation criteria: SOLD OUT - WILL NOT BE SOLD OUT? And this position is
will continue to exist until rich,
those self-confident publishers who - finally! - will allow themselves
be philanthropists and publish a book based on some other criteria
riev, except for the criterion of profitability? Isn't this obvious?
And doesn’t it really follow from this that no groups, intrigues
gi, roundabout flattering maneuvers, no awards, articles and TV shows -
chi are not able to change this cast ironworld order? Really?
this purely SOVIET myth has not yet died, as if in literature
you can get through a tour with a well-put together group - like going to a movie
to the evening show, without a ticket, “for the show”! Yes, this happened in
former times, but even then this was an exception, for the rules
the scrap was: IDEOLOGICAL PURITY and BENEVOTION OF THE AUTHORITIES. A
What use is it to me today from the favor of the esteemed N.
Yutanov, if he doesn’t have the money to publish my book?..
I absolutely do not understand Alexander Gennadievich’s concerns. Decide
I really don’t understand the fears of the Inter-participants who sympathize with him.
presscona. Literature is a quiet, individual matter, initially -
done alone. A writer, by definition, is ALWAYS ALONE.
No one will help him, no one will advance him, no one will elevate him -
sieve Except for the only mover, whose name is the Gift of God. And maybe
perhaps, precisely for this reason, so that he could at least briefly throw off the numbness -
the burden of this loneliness, so that he can rest from this curse -
of that loneliness - and such problems should be arranged for it -
rischa, like INTERPRESSCON. And organize awards - for him. And
proclaiming toasts is in his honor. So that he knows: loneliness
it is large, but not limitless.
Everything else - groups, intrigues, "providing for the press",
promises to “arrange”, threats “not to miss” - all this is from the crafty
go, and no significant roleplay. (Pop-
try to “arrange” a book that promises the publisher a burnout; I'll try-
Don't miss it; he has the manuscript of an obvious bestseller!).
I admit that this position may seem arrogant and elitist to some.
noah, lifeless - perhaps. But this is the result of almost forty years -
it is boiled in a cauldron of passions called “literary life”.
Forty years of trial and error. And have an observation: a fool learns to
your mistakes, smart - on others.
5. Let's agree right away: the prestige of the award determines -
based on ONLY ONE factor - the stability of high literary
criterion. If from year to year, over many years, this
the prize is awarded for works of high class - this prize
destined to be prestigious. But once the jury makes a mistake, makes a mistake once,
another and that’s all: all that remains of prestige in the blink of an eye is the horns
yes legs. This happened with Aelita. At least IN MY EYES
ZAH she lost HALF of her prestige immediately, immediately after
only the jury followed the lead of the authorities and betrayed their souls. More
one or two similar mistakes ruined this award (in my
eyes!) finally. The same thing, unfortunately, happened with Belyaevskaya
bonus: it malfunctioned right at the start, and now we have to wait for what
what will happen to her next. "Interpresscon", I must admit, is strongly supported
spoiled his authority by giving preference to one quite mediocre
vein novel. "Great Ring" AwardI can now
remember, never once surprised or irritated me - which in itself
remarkable, considering the heterogeneity of the “jury”,
in addition, it also changes from year to year. (This is just proof again
tells us that “good is always good”). Talk about "The Wanderer"
It’s probably still too early, although the first set of laureates suited me quite well.
not - not all good works received the prize, but ONLY good ones
rich. It’s inappropriate for me to judge the “Bronze Snail”, but I console myself
with the hope that I have not yet made a single mistake, in
in any case - rude.
There is, however, a fundamentally different point of view: the press
The prestige of the prize is, first of all, the prestige of the jury. This point of view to me
understandable, but I just can’t accept it. What to do then if
Is the jury generally anonymous (Nobel Prize)? If the jury consists of
people who are not pleasant to ME, but at the same time he gives out prizes in FULL agreement
in accordance with MY ideas?..If the jury members are people
the brightest, and their ideas about literature are, well, at least saintly
take it out?!..
Please note that so far I have been talking about
awards from the point of view, so to speak, of an observer - a member and participant
nickname "Interpresscona". But there is also a point of view
AUTHOR - potential recipient of the award! This is where they start
factors that cannot be taken into account or even analyzed at all.
Is it possible through an anonymous survey?establish a relationship
WRITERS to the above-mentioned prizes (by the way, an interesting thought, you won’t
it seems?), and I’m afraid that after this the picture is already quite
confused, completely confused.
Isn’t it easier for us, my dears, to proceed from the most democratic
sky and the most general principle: “More bonuses - good and
nykh"? Let each of us have the bonus that he
considers it highly prestigious, and (remember the joke?) the prize that he
doesn't want to admit it at all.
I took this opportunity to present my understanding of the trial
a lemma that suddenly became scandalously topical. As for
ranking of awards, then I would not want to do this.
This is the same as answering Chubais where he put his wow-
black I can only say that the most coveted awards in the world
There are two for me - the Nobel Prize and the "Bronze Snail". And I know
hey, why? Right. That's why.
6. No "objective reflection of literary significance"
does not exist in nature AT ALL! There is a purely SUBJECTIVE
evaluation of a work, and characteristic only and precisely for this
no group of connoisseurs. The larger the group, the more
to readers, her assessment will seem “correct.” (For example, a bonus
INTERPRESSCON seems to the broad masses of readers certainly
more “correct” than “Wanderer” or “Snail”, despite
partial intersections of results). Howmore homogeneous group (in
Ideally, all jury members have the same literary taste), especially
the error of the average score for each of the assessed works is smaller
denies, but THE MORE readers will be dissatisfied with the assessment (so
elitist criticism highly values G. Hesse and T. Mann, to whom
the new mass of readers remains completely indifferent).
Each assessment of a literary work characterizes one
both this work and the literary taste of connoisseurs. From-
dividing one from the other is impossible IN PRINCIPLE. Every time I put
assessment of the writer, you MUST, although without realizing it, give
assessment of one's own literary taste.
Almost all sociological surveys show: from the point of view
from the perspective of ANY evaluating audience (jury), all evaluated productions
knowledge are divided into three fairly clearly defined groups: “good
worst", "average" and "poor" (top, middle and bottom third of the total)
list of evaluated works). The jury may differ in
its composition is very strong (for example, a jury consisting of pro-
professional literary critics, on the one hand, and a jury consisting of
high school students, - on the other hand), accordingly, strongly
scores for the same work differ, but -
which is typical! - “average” and “bad” works can change -
places in the final lists of different juries, the works are “ho-
good" are always rated as good(remains in the upper third
list) ALL jury. "Good is always good, but bad turns out to be -
"It's not always bad."
Let's see how the jury of "The Wanderer" worked with the production
big form in 1994 at the first stage - selection of finalists
Comrade
AVERAGE SCORE
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bulychev RIVER KHRONOS 7.86 0.59
Lazarchuk ANOTHER SKY 7.38 0.84
Rybakov GRAVITY... 7.29 0.61
Joiners MONKS... 7.13 0.61
Mikhailov LORD.. 5.57 0.65
Lukyanenko KNIGHTS... 5.38 0.68
Tyurin STONE AGE 4.63 0.94
Here: each work is scored by each jury member.
lah on a 10-point scale; penultimate column - average score
for each of the works; last column - corresponding
root mean square error of the mean score.
The jury was faced with a limited task at this stage: to display
select THREE candidates for the final stage. However, it is easy to see
that, using ONLY a 10-point rating system, this can be done
impossible. ERRORS COVER DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AVERAGE SCORES.
From a mathematical (and common sense) point of view, the first four pro-
works have the SAME AVERAGE SCORE, differences between scores
kami are RANDOM in nature. The stated problem of solution is not
has - perhapsdraw lots. And this is where it comes to the rescue
skating system.
The jury members not only evaluated the works in points, they obliga-
They were also required to distribute them by place - from I to VII.
This is what the distribution looks like:
┌─────────────────────────────── ───┬───┬───┬───┬───┬───┬───┬───┐
│ DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS │ I │II │III│IV │ V │VI │VII│
├─────────────────────────────── ───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┤
│Bulychev "River Chronos" │ 2 │ 1 │ 2 │ 1 │ 1 │ * │ * │
├─────────────────────────────── ───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┤
│Lazarchuk “Another Sky” │ 2 │ 4 │ * │ 2 │ * │ * │ * │
├─────────────────────────────── ───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┤
│Rybakov "Gravity plane "Tsesarevich" │ 2 │ 1 │ 1 │ 3 │ * │ * │ * │
├─────────────────────────────── ───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┤
│Stolyarov "Monks under the moon" │ 2 │ 1 │ 3 │ 2 │ * │ * │ * │
├─────────────────────────────── ───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┤
│Mikhailov "Lord" │ 1 │ 1 │ 1 │ 1 │ 2 │ 1 │ * │
├─────────────────────────────── ───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┤
│Lukyanenko"Knights of the Forty Islands"│ * │ 1 │ 1 │ * │ 3 │ 3 │ * │
├─────────────────────────────── ───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┼───┤
│Tyurin "Stone Age" │ * │ * │ 1 │ 1 │ 1 │ 2 │ 3 │
└─────────────────────────────── ───┴───┴───┴───┴───┴───┴───┴───┘
In the table you can see exactly how many placesgiven number
each work received - for example, Bulychev's novel received
2 first places, 1 second, 2 third, 1 fourth and 1 fifth place.
We see now that all the first four scored the SAME
the number of first places is two, and again we can’t make it yet
boron Analyzing the number of second places, we see that
so far there is only Lazarchuk - he has 4 second places, the rest
three candidates again scored the same number of second places -
one at a time. And only “up to the third order of smallness”
we are identifying the finalists: Stolyarov scored 3 third places,
Bulychev - 2 - they reach the finals.
Does the result mean that Lazarchuk wrote more
a powerful novel than Stolyarov, and Bulychev achieved greater creative
successes than Rybakov? No way! Even if we talk
not about the mythical OBJECTIVE value of these works, but only
but only about the SUBJECTIVE assessment of these works from the point of view
this, AND ONLY THIS, group of readers - even in this very
in a very narrow sense of the word, only one thing can be said: in the opinion
of this jury, Lazarchuk, Stolyarov, Bulychev and Rybakov wrote the ODI-
SO GOOD novels, having achieved relative success in comparison
meeting with the rest of the seven. ALL. No more HEALTHY
There is NO evaluation of the results obtained.
The skating system is blind, deaf, indifferent to the arguments of reason and
feelings,she doesn’t care what to deal with - novels or figurative
skating, but it solves a very important problem: it ALWAYS and
UNIQUELY distributes applicants to places. WHAT DO WE ALL NEED?
REQUIRED IN THIS CASE. Let's not confuse the MANNER of pi-
satel with his AESTHETIC PRINCIPLES. All cars mentioned here are
ry have their own and only their own manner: Shchegolev cannot be confused with
Loginov, and Tyurina with Sergei Ivanov. However, the aesthetic benefits
their principles are common. They all work within the framework of the fantastic
realism, that is, for them the reliability of what is described is higher
everything. They rely on “real” reality - gesture (maybe
and obscene), which they observed in the institute canteen,
a word (possibly rude) that was heard on the ferry to Verkhnedvina-
ske, feeling (not too noble, maybe even completely low-
something) that we ourselves experienced at some not best moment of our lives -
know... They invent worlds, but do NOT invent reality, and therefore
and their worlds are real and voluminous.
Adherents of ANOTHER aesthetics profess diametrically opposed
false principle: “fiction must be fantastic.” They are convinced
are convinced that the real world has nothing to do with a fantasy work
Denia, they love to talk about the “specificity of science fiction.” In his work
However, they rely on a fictional world (by themselves), on the world “as it is
should be", to a world that does not exist in reality and, moreover, -
notcapable of existing in reality. They - "invent psycho-
logic". That is why their heroes are stilted and poster-like, their adventures
tions are edifying, and creative manners are so monotonously didactic.
They teach. They educate. They bring the truth to the world. With everyone
consequences arising from this.
(For a long time I thought that they simply couldn’t write, and I
It took two decades to understand: no, this is their aesthetics,
this is their literary principle, they DO NOT WANT it any other way. "Stupidity is
same mind, only different" ...)
Don’t be mistaken: “The Wanderer”, in theory, is not awarded at all
to authors who write in a certain manner - no! This is a prize for writing
Those who remain in fantasy are REALISTS. That's why I have
personally, there is not the slightest doubt that Stern, Shchegolev, and Logi-
Nov, and Tyurin, and many, many more, loved by me and with joy
readable, UNCONDITIONALLY can, and moreover, MUST, OBLIGATED to
claim this prize! Lord, the list you provided -
this is a list of our best writers. Fear God! How could you
Do you have even the slightest doubt about this? How's your hand?
did not hesitate to contrast Stolyarov with Lukin, Uspensky -
Rybakov, Stern, Shchegolev, Lukyanenko - the entire current composition
jury of "The Wanderer"? Or maybe you're ready with the same cruel
it’s easy to contrast Ilf-Petrov with Viktor Nekrasov, and
Platonov - Vasily Aksenov?Leo Tolstoy - Bulgakov? Left
end of the spectrum - right?
I am not at all of the opinion that "The Wanderer" is the most
prestigious award in Russian science fiction. All statements like this
kind seem to me to be polemical expenses of the past, present
current and future discussions. Only time and public opinion can
are able to arrange all the awards by rank (and even then, to be honest,
for each individual person, if he thinks independently,
no public opinion is a decree). The same circumstance as
this prize can be awarded (both theoretically and, I think,
kticheski) only to representatives of REALISTIC aesthetics, at all
does not seem to me to be a suppression of creative freedom. Promotion
a certain trend - yes, undoubtedly, but why suddenly "suppressed-
nie"? Now, if the jury handed down death sentences
to those of opposing aesthetics, then, of course...
10. I don’t feel any discomfort about this. Nao-
Bort, I kind of got an additional degree of freedom. In '93 I
had to painfully choose between "Omon Ra" and "Message to
Corinthians." This year “Omon Ra” did not make it to the top three finalists,
and with joy, unclouded by anything, I voted for Stolyarovskaya
a story that I love very much.
11. Igor Vsevolodovich did not come because that’s the way it was for him
it worked. He’s not the only one, unfortunately. And Pelevin didn’t come, and Mirer,
but they were going to.I don’t want to guess if this is all an accident or something
gestures. I would like to believe that it is an accident.
12. I was categorically AGAINST the exclusion of "Terra Fantastica"
from the nomination list when this issue was raised. How? One
Of the best publishing houses in Russia, only
because, you see, we are worried about what the princess will say
Marya Aleksevna? What nonsense! What does ethics have to do with it? Now if only TF
was a shitty publishing house and would sponsor the prize so that...
then stick out yourself - this is where the nomination committee should
show firmness precisely for ethical reasons...What the hell?
comradeship? Why should ethics conflict with common sense?
meaning? Are they opposite? And please don’t bring me-
that example with the “Bronze Snail” and S. Yaroslavtsev. This is absolutely
another matter. Now, if Yutanov determined the winner ALONE,
then yes, then talking about ethics would make sense. And I'm sure
By the way, in this situation Yutanov would NOT have awarded ANYTHING
TF prize.
13. Yuri Fleishman certainly got excited. Not only INTENTION-
NOTHING, but generally NO insult to anyone, the jury,
Of course, it didn’t allow it. The very formulation of the question seems to me
so strange and unexpected that I am truly at a loss. Usually
in such cases I try to find the background, hidden reasons
resentment and irritation, which the most irritated person maybe, not
clear, but in this case I just can’t do anything. I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
A group of writers got together, found a sponsor... Or rather, everything happened
on the contrary: a sponsor was found and a group of writers was gathered. Together we develop
discussed the statute of the award, voted, presented it... What is the crime?
Who offended whom and how? Writers, jury members - you all agree,
very, very good. The sponsor is a decent person. Prize-winners
- the most worthy and appreciated by all (or, say, many) authors...
What's the matter? Why do swords break and are thrown through the air?
gloves to an unknown offender? I don't understand anything. I remember
only the famous dialogue between Saint-Aignan and the brilliant Port-
tos, who brought a challenge to the courtier, who did not understand anything,
Comte de Bragelonne. "...Just think! Moving, hatch and portrait!
But, my friend, one of these reasons is enough for all two
The soldiers of France and Spain cut each other's throats..." Who didn't
remembers this episode from Dumas-per, re-read it - and you will understand...
which makes me feel like a complete Saint Aignan.
This is all ridiculous. Stolyarov and Shchegolev quarreled. Strong
the words are spoken, and everyone considers himself right. Bitterly. I love
both of them, and I only hope that the cold that enveloped them did not spread
applies to me too. It's stupid! I KNOW ABSOLUTELY EXACTLY that I didn’t want to
and Stolyarov did not have in his thoughts to offend anyone from “our
camp", and even more so - Shchegolev,whom I always valued highly and
both as a writer and as a polemicist. I know, but how can I convey this?
my knowledge to Alexander Gennadievich? But he is already (under good circumstances)
a pretext, of course) and resolutely resigned from his post
seminar prefects...
You are my dear friends! Let's live together. Let's study
live in a free world. It was under totalitarianism that we were all the same
high Now we are all different, and each declares himself in his own way, and
everyone is their own Zoil. Previously, we all had one enemy - the regime.
Now, it seems to us, we have many enemies. This is not true. At ka-
Every writer has one and only enemy, who is also his best friend:
a scratched (or worse, blank) sheet of paper. Everything else -
glitches, mirages and languor of spirit.
Let's unite. But not in order to “get through”, and not
in order to “dump” someone, but only in order to find
a way to help each other, support each other (even if only
morally), to taste the “luxury of human communication.”
Let's swear, but don't quarrel.
Let's argue, but remember that in a dispute what is born (or even
let the truth perish, but an enemy should not be born in a dispute or
die friend.
Let us learn to recognize the same rights for all others.
va, which they won for themselves.
And let's proceed from the fact that we are all good people, honest,
intelligent and striving for good
Share your thoughts about the article