There is such an opinion! - Monks under the moon.

***************** THERE IS SUCH AN OPINION!  ********************* 

                           N.PERUMOV

         "Monks under the Moon" - a disinterested view

   I apologize in advance to the readers for taking on the wrong business.
and I assure you that the author of these lines did not in any way think about
squeeze into the ranks of the glorious cohort of fandom-recognized critics,
pushing away Dr. Katz with one shoulder and R. Arbitman with the other. On-
against...
   This is the view of a person who writes science fiction, but at the same time
having not the slightest idea about how it, fiction,
should be criticized.  However, I would like to object to those who
began to indiscriminately accuse A. M. Stolyarov’s things of being “unreadable”,
moreover, calling on Andrei Mikhailovich to write a “space opera”
with hidden meaning." Excuse me, gentlemen of the fandom, have you forgotten? 
"The Crow", "The Idiot's Album", "Exorcism" or "The Third Babylon"? 
Not to mention Pandora's Dream! So I would be careful about asserting
give with such categoricalness that A.M.S. "can't" compete
with Anglo-American “plot” fiction. Maybe even a lot.
Whenever he wants. And "Exorcism", in my opinion, is equally good
children can be read both in Russia and in Australia... Or did I misunderstand something?
   It was a shame for "Monks under the Moon". Yes, the thing is not out of the ordinary
"easy reading". Yes, almost plotless. But the plot from her, in
mine is not required in this case.Let this mean the plots
The authors of “The Gang” or “Term for the Madman” invent ideas on this topic.
That’s why in those works there is a sea of ​​“psychology”! You can drown.
(This is an attack!) It’s strange that the critics of “Monks” didn’t notice, in my opinion
look, obvious - Stolyarov takes the imposed one as if in the teeth
plot - the collapse of totalitarian socialism - and a few strokes
a confident impressionist (or post-impressionist - whoever
I like it) turns a banal story into an incredible riot
colors, images, rhythms...
   It may very well be that I misunderstood “Monks.” Very
It may be that I didn’t understand anything about them at all and the author’s intention
The village remained a sealed secret for me. But, you see,
It's not much fun to play a game called "guess what"
Andrey Stolyarov wanted to say “Monks?” I'm reading a book and 
I have my own opinion, perception, feeling...
Even the “assemblage point” (as Carlos Ivanovich Castaneda teaches) shifts
tsya. But the roof doesn't move. It seems to be nailed down tightly... And how
I can pass by an unusually dense, elastic syllable, short,
energetic - but not stubby and not cut to the quick -
phrases! Past the sentences, each of which is a story-picture in
miniature, ready-made “image”! Mariengof, I believe, wrote down without hesitation
I would like Stolyarov to be an ally - “figurative painting” in “Monks” you-
state in the best traditions of Russianimagism. Joiners
drove "Monks" like a mosaic tower. Or - he was filming, just like a ki-
but the picture. In the novel, it was the images that interested me, and not
plot. What is the plot there, in my opinion, the minimum dose - and this
ok. I followed the fate of smoothly flowing into each other
images, each of which is a revived recognizable detail of our
recent life, but reborn, having undergone some magical
crucible and took on a life of its own.
   Remember Tarkovsky's immortal "Stalker". Remember, but from-
not in order to compare Stolyarov and his “Mona-
how." In Stalker, what was important, in my opinion, was not the plot (which 
will cover one page) - namely, those inimitable images that appeal to
The calls that brought to us the inhuman breath of the Zone. I have on "Stal-
kere" the blood froze in my veins. And, moreover, much stronger than from any 
something like "Nightmares on Elm Street - X", where "X" tends to infinite
infinity. And, most importantly, it is well known that after very, very
many directors began to calmly “quote” Andrei Arsent-
Evicha. Frames from his works are scattered among dozens, if not hundreds, 
films. Its famous floor, flooded with water, is worth it!
   I write this to the fact that there have always been and will be things (both in cinema and in
literature), where the NEW is condensed, pulled to a point to the limit. Often,
very often such works remain misunderstood and unappreciated.
nanny. The strange thing about themshocks, irritates (“What is he, a bastard,
thinks he's smarter than me?! To the aspen!"), makes some people uncomfortable 
sensible yawn. Remember how many people left the sessions when
They showed "Stalker"! I saw it myself, don’t argue. But!
   The strength of the “Monks” lies precisely in the density of the axes that have become
borrowed visions. This is not revealing the secrets of the party's gold or in-
the quiet life of the leaders. This is the rushing stream of human consciousness, locked
him into the cage of Soviet life. Perhaps the feverish delirium
drunk to the point of insanity. Visions flash one after another, you...
line up in bizarre rows, evoking unexpected associations...
And I have no doubt - many of these images will be picked up. No,
not readers - brothers-writers, just like brothers-
the directors borrowed from Tarkovsky, Fellini, Wenders, Fosse...
This is by no means flattery towards Stolyarov or an attempt to put him
on some kind of pedestal. I'm talking now about the principle, the very principle -
no borrowing. Now it’s difficult to say what exactly will be gleaned from
Nuto from "Monks", but it will happen. Without a doubt.
   (Here I may be accused of lack of argumentation. Alas, that’s all
The above is just my subjective opinion. How to confirm 
intuitive guess?) 
   And one more thing. It didn’t seem to me that A.M.S., as V.Vladi writes,
worldly in "Two Hundred-A", "carelessly borrowed the attributes of the tabloid 
horror literature. Dear V. Vladimirsky, in my opinion,is wrong. The Child, the Iron Maiden, the Black Blanket he mentioned,
not mentioned Red Hair - did not come from Lovecraft or
King. They are from everyone’s memory. These are the attributes of a child’s “scary” 
folklore, famous "horror stories" from which each of us
trembled as a child. The appearance of precisely these structures in the context of ro-
mana is completely understandable and justified. Children's fears do not leave
us and, when the staples that held Reality together begin to crumble, the flow
consciousness brings to the surface precisely these hidden in secluded
corners of the soul, almost forgotten memories. The world of "Monks" is disintegrating
- and they line up as a guard of honor along the road into the darkness
they, who frightened us in childhood, and have finally found freedom...
   And now - “morality, fresh and original.” Will I often
reread the novel by A. M. Stolyarov? I admit that no. Tastes
me primitive (almost like Felix Sorokin - “infantile
militarism" are called). I love fantasy, swords, magic, dragons 
and so on. But sometimes, when you need to give a good kick to the stagnant
imagination, when you need to feel the taste of a living word on your lips - I
I'll take "Monks Under the Moon" off the shelf...