A damn dozen awkward questions for the jury members - Andrey Chertkov.

**************************************************************** 
******* A DAM'S DOZEN AWKWARD QUESTIONS FOR THE JURY MEMBERS, ****** 
*** TO THE FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE "WANDERER" PRIZE *** 

 1. What do you understand by the term “fandom”? What does it mean
fandom for you, as a science fiction writer - and as a publishing director
flattery?
 (Option for B.N. Strugatsky: Why in your speeches
In connection with Interpresscon, the idea was repeatedly voiced that 
fandom should have as little connection as possible with Interpresscon 
nie? What, then, do you understand by the term “fandom”?) 
 2. A significant number of Interpresscon participants are definitely
accepted the public speeches of Andrei Mikhailovich Stolyarov
as an expression of your point of view. This opinion was also based
to the fact that, speaking in the debate, you expressed solidarity with the position
Stolyarov, negatively perceived by a significant part of the audit 
rii.How true is it that Andrei Stolyarov in most cases
expresses the opinion of Boris Natanovich Strugatsky?
 (Option for I.V. Mozheiko: How do you feel about presenting the book
Dr. Katz of most possible criticism awards? Your own 
emotional attitude towards this book?) 
 3. Doesn’t it follow from the previous question that Boris Natanovich
Strugatsky, as a rule, accepts the point of view of Andrei Mikhailovi-
What about Stolyarov? 
 (Option for I.V. Mozheiko: Youmade serious complaints about
work of the nomination commissions of the Bronze Snail, Inter- 
presscon" and "Wanderer" regarding the fact that the "River Chronos" got- 
la in the nomination, but "Favorite" - no. Could you please repeat your 
argument for readers of our magazine?) 
 4. How do you feel about the fact that Alexander Shchegolev in his stature
Thie voiced an opinion that has long existed in the fandom: Andrey Stolyarov
considers himself the number one figure in Russian science fiction and
is he putting himself on a pedestal on the literary authority of the Strugatskys?
 5. Please arrange those listed in alphabetical order
literary prizes in the field of fiction in descending order
prestige - in your opinion, of course: "Aelita", "Belyaevskaya
Prize", "Bronze Snail", "Great Ring", "Interpresscon", 
"Wanderer". Share your opinion about each of them. 
 6. How justified, from your point of view, are statements about
that the "Strannik" award most objectively reflects literature
the significance of the nominated works? How in this context
looks like the non-participation of Vyacheslav Rybakov's novel "Gravity plane" to Tsesar-
HIV", winner of the "Bronze Snail" and "Interpresscon", in the final 
nom voting on "The Wanderer"?
 7. How realistic, in your opinion, is the possibility that the premium
"The Wanderer" will be given to authors who write science fiction based on other aesthetics. 
different principles than Stolyarov and Lazarchuk? For example:Loginov,
Shchegolev, Tyurin, Sergei Ivanov, Stern, Bryder and Chadovich, Lukyanenko, 
Vershinin - those authors whose works evoke a lasting 
readers' interest?
 8. If it is declared that “The Wanderer” is the most prestigious pre-
mia in Russian science fiction, and it is awarded only to authors,
writing in a strictly defined manner, then isn’t this a direct
my attempt to declare this trend in science fiction general and
the highest priority - and an indirect attempt to force others
authors write in the same manner? And can this be regarded as
suppression of creative freedom?
 9. The jury of the "Strannik" award includes authors who write in diameter -
in opposite directions - just compare the prose
Stolyarov and Lukins, the prose of Uspensky and Rybakov, so that in this 
there is no doubt left. At the same time, the “Wanderer” is proclaimed
award for a very specific direction in science fiction - for example,
a phenomenon usually identified with the works of Stolyarov. It doesn't seem
Do you think that a paradoxical situation has arisen: writers are forced
evaluate works based on aesthetic principles alien to them
pov?
 10. Do you regard the invitation to serve on the jury of the “Strannik” award as
recognition of your literary merits - or it is caused by other
(opportunistic or political) considerations?
 (Option for B.N. Strugatsky: How compatible is it with your
points of view, your participation in the jury of twocompletely different awards in 
areas of fiction - after all, you find yourself in a situation where you take out 
are expected to vote for two completely different works, defined 
sharing in each case the best work, from your point of view 
year? And which of your two incarnations is a member of the jury of “The Wanderer” 
or a member of the jury of the "Bronze Snail" - most accurately reflects your 
opinion?) 
 (Option for A.E. Chertkov: Andrey Evgenievich, why in the bulletin-
not given to Boris Natanovich, a member of the jury of the "Wanderer" award 
Strugatsky, S. Yaroslavtsev’s story “The Devil” was not crossed out 
among people", the writing of which Boris Strugatsky has difficulty 
harmful attitude - although this is prohibited by the Regulations on Prejudice 
Mia?) 
 (Option for N.Yu. Yutanov: By what principles were members invited
jury of the "Wanderer" award: on literary merits, on market conditions 
for other reasons, for personal preferences? For what reasons not 
The jury included Mikhail Weller, Boris Stern, Victor Pelevin, Olga 
Larionova, Evgeny Voiskunsky, Vladislav Krapivin, Vladimir 
Pokrovsky, other authoritative authors?) 
 11. Why do you think the award and presentation ceremony
"The Wanderer" did not come so sensitive to ethical nuances 
a man like Kir Bulychev? And this despite the fact that his participation in the development
The regulations on the prize and preparation for its award were completed
quite weighty: for example, it was he who proposed that in the ballotfor
voting given to the jury member, works were crossed out
this jury member himself - and he insisted on this... Do you think
that his non-appearance was an accident?
 12. How do you personally feel about the fact that the founder of the award
"The Wanderer" publishing house "Terra Fantastica" received an award as 
best publisher? How ethical do you think this situation is?
Shouldn't the publishing house "Terra Fantastica" refuse
including yourself in the nominations?
 13. Yuri Fleishman publicly stated that he accepted the award
"Wanderer" awards as a deliberate insult to the fandom and personally
him as a fan. Aren't you afraid that this opinion will be shared by
significant part of the active fandom? Do you recognize the fact of intention-
insult to science fiction readers by the jury and the founders
winners of the "Wanderer" award
********************** Andrey CHERTKOV ********************** 
          FIFTEEN ANSWERS TO THIRTEEN "UNCONVENIENT"
    QUESTIONS, INCLUDING TWO LYRICAL DISTRACTIONS AND NOT COUNTING
                 A COMPLETELY RANDOM EPIGRAPH

                           "Hence the feeling of the Apocalypse
                        every time after the next takeover
                        the darkness of an idol. This was the case after the death of Push-
                        Kina ("The sun of Russian poetry has set-
                        elk..." This is with Zhukovsky, Bo-
                        Ratyn, notspeaking of Lermontov, Ty-
                        tcheve!). Dostoevsky, who was buried
                        like the last prophet, Tolstoy (“Here
                        Tolstoy will die, and everything will go to hell." And
                        who spoke? Not some Chertkov, but
                        Chekhov! However, everything really went well
                        to hell," but not because Tolstoy died,
                        but because we did not have a great nation
                        nal culture - there were only great
                        writers."
                           Boris Sushkov. "Our rock is phenomenal -
                        "nost" ("Literary newspaper", 08/24/1994
                        p.10. My emphasis - A.Ch.)

   Before moving on to the answers to your “inconvenient” questions, many
Dear gentlemen, editors of "Two Hundred" (don't blame me, guys,
I am addressing you so pompously - the rules of the game, you understand), I
I want - or rather, I simply have to - to do two, I hope not too much
large lyrical digressions. Without this, my answers, how can I
it seems that they will not be read quite as they should be read.
   The first lyrical digression is long.
   I confess frankly: I am a narrow-minded person. Where others see
an insidious conspiracy, I see only a stupid coincidence of circumstances. Where
others see malicious intent, I see only an unfortunate oversight. Exactly
thereforeI believe that the conflict that arose at Interpresscon
friend of the "Wanderer" award and the report of Andrei Stolyarov, and who is now
this could develop into a real war, but in fact it has no effect
constitutes no ideological or ideological basis, which
which could justify this war. By the way, this is precisely the circumstance
ism and distinguishes the current conflict from the “war” that was fought
a few years ago between us - the fandom and the writers of "Struga-
Tskovsky" direction - and the so-called "Young Guards". 
That war was one of the forms of resistance to the totalitarian system,
for the opposite side of the barricade was one of the strongholds of "them"
"periments of evil": not only was it presented as bad, untalented 
science fiction, and was also directly associated with the CPSU, the KGB, the
zura and other attributes of the regime.
   However, that war ended a long time ago - and it didn’t end
the way all wars usually end - not with the victory of one of them
parties with the payment of appropriate indemnities to the other, and not
a temporary truce so that the parties could regroup
strength No, it ended in nothing, just zilch - yesterday's against -
nicknames, by the will of fate, ended up in different dimensions, and now everyone
has every right to believe that it was he who suffered the victory -
or was defeated. What is still being published and perhaps
are sold out (I don’t know this: there are no exact figures - therefore,
noevidence) books by Pavlov, Gulyakovsky, Shcherbakov and such
graphomaniacs of a new breed, like Petukhov and Malyshev (who also
for some reason they are counted among the “Young Guards”) for me absolutely
that means nothing. Let them, as they say, taste and color chi-
there are no writers, but there are enough graphomaniacs and stupid publishers for our time.
   Unfortunately, some of my fellow writers and fellow fans who were
previously (and always) on this side of the barricade, there is no way to remain
to renew itself in its warlike inertia. If the real enemy has disappeared
without a trace in another dimension - well, let's find ourselves a new enemy -
in ours. And they find it.
   Okay, let's not clog our heads with artistic images,
let’s move on to the harshest truth of life. I’ll try
describe the situation as I see it, I am a narrow-minded person and not at all
pugnacious. However, I apologize, specific names in this case
I will refrain from calling. They'll beat me again.
   So, one good writer (and, by the way, my good friend) does
at Interpresscon a report on what bad literature is and
what is good literature - and why can’t there be between them
eternal peace. The report, in my opinion, contains equally
provisions are both controversial and indisputable - however, the point, in general, is not
himself, but in the accompanying circumstances. These circumstances
are such that the day before the author of the report received some literary
award, during the presentation of which a whole series of events took placeannoying - and,
apparently unpleasant for many of those present - overlays and non-
misunderstandings. Therefore, it is not surprising that during
debate on the report, another good writer (and also my good
friend), who did not receive the prize and for some reason believed that it was not
never receives it, comes up with a sharp objection that the report in co-
r not incorrect and in general - if all this is so, then he, the name, is a writer
bad. Or, more precisely, mediocre (this seems to have been the formula -
rovka).Finally, the third good writer (and again my good
friend) begins to openly get personal, mentioning
this is in vain a seminar in which both previously speaking writers are
tel and which is led by the master leading the meeting. After which the head
a cheerful mess breaks out, in which cakes and slaps are already flying
with or without reason, but which, unlike the ancient chap-
Linov's comedies are perceived by no means without Homeric laughter
ta.
   OK. "Interpresscon" ends, but the conflict ends there
is not exhausted. Two good, talented editors (both mine
good friends) release two issues of Tolstoy and
beautifully made magazine (only under different names), in
in which polemicists who have not spoken verbally get full opportunity
the desire to throw cakes at each other in writing - in the name of freedom
y words and for the benefit of future historical researchers of our
dirty laundry.As a result, the attacks of everyone on everyone acquire a ha-
otic character, an evolution akin to that begins among cakes
which was described in A. Dneprov’s story “Crabs Walk Along the Island”,
and in some cakes, different sizes of bu-
skiers, as well as cluster nuclear warheads with a homing unit
Denia. In particular, the fourth good pi-
satel (and again, damn it, my good friend), who nailed-
the controversial provisions of the notorious report are not to be pilloried
and not the results of awarding the notorious prize, but the report itself -
chick and laureate, calling the latter nothing more than “the gray cardinal”,
"boor" and "pocket writer with a pocket bonus" (sorry if 
slightly confused in the wording).
   So, from my purely personal point of view it all looks
quite unsightly. And that's why I don't want to understand at all -
decide who is right and who is wrong, and get involved in hostilities at will
fight from sides. I repeat once again: this conflict has no idea
does not contain a logical core and stems mainly from
way due to accumulated personal animosities, discrepancies between personal
tastes and clashes of personal ambitions. Moreover, if the conflict
the opposing sides will not step on the throat of their own songs (and self-
love) and will continue in the same spirit, involving in their analysis -
more and more new fighters, the consequences will be of very little consequence
nice. I won'tgo into detail - the situation is extrapolated
It's elementary. One thing I can say for sure is that there are no winners.
there will be.
   And a few more words about my own position. Taking advantage
case, I want to inform the readers of "Two Hundred" that in
at the beginning of September I resigned from my duties as a responsible
retarder of the "Wanderer" award, and also left both nominees
tion commissions - both “The Wanderer” and “The Bronze Snail”. I did it
it's not so much because the whole thing influenced me so much
this fight (although not without it, of course); the main reason, however,
is that from next year Intercom will finally begin publishing
dit regularly - in the form of an autonomous critical-informational dissemination
cases in the Moscow magazine "If".  For him - and for me - this
means a much wider audience than before; investigator-
but in order to objectively cover the events taking place now in fandom
tastic, I simply must distance myself from any official and
semi-official organizations that produce these events. Ele-
mental journalistic ethics, nothing more.
   The second lyrical digression is short.
   While preparing my answers, I re-read the letters in “A” number
magazine "Two Hundred" and drew attention to one circumstance that
the swarm had previously eluded me, but now it literally rushed into
eyes. And it is precisely this circumstance, it seems to me, that has greatly increased
poured oninflating the current conflict. After all, no matter what letter
hey - it’s not at all about “The Wanderer” and it’s not about Stolyarov. This is only
water. The authors of the letters, speaking as if about the problems of science fiction, in fact
in fact, they simply let off steam, relieve the accumulated tension
from our current stupid life with all its so uncomfortable
problems. Unfortunately, they don’t release their tension anywhere.
either to the side, to a safe place, but to each other. Exactly
therefore R. Arbitman runs into A. Sviridov with A. Privalov,
P. Vyaznikov and S. Loginov - to A. Stolyarov, A. Patients - to B.N. 
Strugatsky, V. Kazakov - for the "Wanderer" award, B. Stern - for the count 
came from the former metropolis, V. Okulov - for the capital's fans, A. Laza -
Rchuk - on the fandom as a whole, and N. Gornov - on A. Chertkov. 
   At the last collision I have to make a special stop - understandable
matter why. Although I’ll be honest, I don’t really want this. Not
I see the point in picking up a glove thrown on the floor for the amusement of those who want to
to scandals of the public. And at the same time - to leave it without attention
It’s probably also completely wrong. So in a nutshell.
   I think the current dark state of Nikolai Gornov’s soul is explained by
easy to remove. Returning from Nikolaev to his native Omsk, he and
as he plunged into the suffocating abyss of the business he inherited from
Pavlov Jr. - with all his debts, overdue loans
and bandit raids. This is not "Guardian Bird"release.Naturally-
It’s clear that Kolya tried to find a support point to turn over
Earth - first of all among his fellow fans. He called me too: he can’t
Is it possible for "TF" to place any of its orders in Omsk printing houses?
raffia? I promised to find out the situation. But nothing positive for
I didn’t find out about Gornov. And Kolya, apparently, was offended: Chertkov, they say, man 
cool, firmly established in St. Petersburg, published a bunch of books, in the millions,
He must be tossing and turning, but he doesn’t want to help his old comrade. Well then
you will explain to him that I have never even seen any millions, especially
there is no divine influence on the financial and production activities of the company
I have, but I live on a fairly modest salary, which I receive for
the fact that I work with texts and their authors? Nothing more. The company
ours currently does not have the ability to post any
orders in Siberia. And arrange little circumstances around this
Chische grievances ("I'll give my hands - I won't give") not only make no sense -
nice, but just stupid.
   In short, I'll say this. I hope that fate will be kind to Nikolai
state-minded, and he will be able to sort out all his problems. And
Things will get better for me, God willing. And we will meet in a year or two -
third, with a smile we will remember what fools we were, and more
I hope there will be no reason for us to declare with resentment into space:
"Kolka (Andryushka) was a good guy...ov!" 
   Do you understand me, Nikolai?
   On this, I think, with lyrical digressionsit's over. I can
move on to answering uncomfortable questions.

   1. The question seems to be simple. Because how else can I relate
to join the fandom if you gave it a good fifteen years of your
life? If only thanks to him I became, as you put it, “pro-
professional fiction editor? However, not everything is so simple - 
then. Because in the subtext the question sounds completely different from the one in the text.
That's not what you're asking, guys, how I - personally - feel about
to the fandom. And you're asking about what influence he, the fandom, has...
calling out to me. And also: do opinions and moods influence me,
which are produced by them. For example, there is an opinion that the bonus
"The Wanderer" is a direct insult to all honest Soviet fa- 
new Or again: in the person of the publishing house "Terra Fantastica" we have
the new “Young Guard”, seeking to usurp power in the fatherland
honest fiction. And suddenly I have a strange feeling - as if
I was transported ten years ago, to the realm of class black and white
logic (“whoever is not with us is against us”).
   Well, good gentlemen, to the question formulated in the subtext
I will answer directly. I really love and respect the fandom, moreover
- I still consider myself part of it. However, today's us
I do not share the tensions that have developed here, in this environment
I'm not going to. And because I work in the notorious publishing house
“Terra Fantastica” and I don’t plan to leave it (if,of course 
they won’t trample on themselves from there). And because I know at what price they are given
us our books that you read and which you - perhaps right-
You criticize carefully. And also because, friends and colleagues, that fandom
ma, about whom you talk so much lately, actually
has not existed for a long time. Fandom, by definition, is MASSIVE.
movement of science fiction lovers. So where is it? Where are all those clubs?
what once made up the Great Ring? Where are the crowded conve-
nations where any neo-fan could come and breathe deeply into
yourself the joy of communicating with your own kind? Where are the fanzines that came out
previously in almost every village (and even in Moscow)? None of this
no more. The old Soviet fandom died. But a new one did not arise -
There is no catch for this yet. The same thing that we habitually have
let's call it "fandom" - just a small crowd of old "professionals"
loyal fans" - former convention regulars, club chairmen
bovs and other fan activists who became too close friends
with a friend and love science fiction too much (and also be with
science fiction) to run to their own corners. In addition, the expression
“professional fan” no longer looks like a simple figure of speech. 
Because most of them (of us) are real pro-
professionals - if not as editors and publishers, then as
at least booksellers. However, here’s what’s strange: claiming to be
swarm of memory for statusfan, with fan enthusiasm, some of them (from
us) don’t really burn. For example, one of my good friends (and
this is exactly so - I emphasize!) he once admitted to me that he
he gets even more excited buying all the books by Russian science fiction writers published
"TF" - for myself personally, but as an employee of a bookselling company 
doesn’t want to get involved with their implementation - there’s more hassle, and financial
The return is not at all the same as in the case of the Western “sure thing”. What
Well, I understand him - however, in this case I have every right to ask
question: who is the biggest fan then - the publisher who produces good
books by domestic authors at a loss, or a trader who
These books are a pleasure to read, and to work with them - thereby
helping Russian science fiction survive - refuses?
   Well, how do you tell me to treat a black cat in a dark coat?
Mnate? Moreover, apparently it is not there.
   2. So, this is it: at Andrei Mikhailovich’s speech, I, unfortunately,
lenition, was not present - at that moment, having wrapped up all matters regarding
"Wanderer" and pretty tired of it, I felt an acute need - 
The chance to find yourself somewhere else, less formal.
Which need was successfully fulfilled. You can ask about
this... But, however, it’s not necessary. So I’m familiar with the report only in
its written version. About the same thing that happened at the meeting and
what dear Boris Natanovich said, I know only by demonstration
niyam eyewitnesses, andthis, you see, is not the same thing as your own
impressions. In any case, I don’t think that Andrei Mikhailo’s theses
Vich can be characterized as a presentation of Boris's point of view 
Natanovich. Of course, there is a certain consonance. But otherwise, 
It’s wrong, and it can’t be.  Boris Natanovich is the leader of the seminar.
What does teacher mean? It would be strange if the students did not re-
nihilated the thoughts and ideas of their Teacher, especially if the Teacher is a Personal
ness. Read about this from the same Strugatskys - for example, in "Noon"
or in "Burdened with Evil". And this applies not only to Andrei Mikhai-
Lovich, but also many other members of the seminar. Me too, probably 
can be blamed for the fact that if not in most cases (after all
I haven’t been in the seminar for very long), then in some I’m sure I’m highly
I express the opinion of Boris Natanovich. However, there are also students
different - some remain more and more silent, even when at the board, and others -
You can't sit still - they have something to say! I'm talking about it
from my own experience: when I worked at school, I also had
these guys that I still don’t even remember. However
The best students are not those who only repeat after the teacher, but
those who, starting from other people’s thoughts, other people’s ideas, can send
move on - on your own path. And from the experience of my communication with Bori-
som Natanovich and Andrei Mikhailovich (both at the seminar and 
outside it) I can confidently say that onactually Stolyarov in
his ideas for a long time and in many ways does not coincide with Strugatsky.
Perhaps that is why Boris Natanovich with such attention
rushes towards his ideas?
   3. This question really follows from the previous one. As well as
and my answer - see above.
   4. I guess I really broke away from the fandom a long time ago, since
Until now I was not aware of the existence of this kind of opinion.
I will answer this way. Writers are, for the most part, openly honest people.
loving people (as, indeed, other creative people). This is not good either
sho, and not bad - it's nature. Stolyarov can consider himself a figure
number one in Russian science fiction. His right. However the same
Rybakov can think the same thing about himself - and not without reason. Inte-
Really, what does Shchegolev think to himself? Is it really true that
is he a mediocre writer? Nonsense! I don't believe it! However, the main thing is not
what you think about yourself - the main thing is that they think the same about you
others. I also think that I am the best editor in the country. Alas,
members of the jury of "The Wanderer" did not agree with me and chose me as the best
editors of the country Efim Shura - probably fair. And I in general
ended up in fourth place - after Gena Belova from North-West
yes." There's nothing you can do - it means you haven't worked hard. In addition, there is 
one more nuance that casts doubt on what was mentioned in your
"opinion" question. The fact is that Stolyarov does not believe that he
writes fiction - hebelieves that he is writing a kind of “borderline”
modern prose. Well, it’s his right to think so, but still
Science fiction fans were the first to notice and recognize it.
concerns the pedestal, then this, really, is not serious. No one respects
the writer himself will never claim the pedestal of his
great predecessors. He will build his own. So here it is:
Andrei Mikhailovich respects himself. 
   5. I remember that as a child I was worried about the question: who is stronger?
elephant or whale? As I got older, this question occupied me
stopped. Because I realized: it makes no sense to compare what
it makes no sense to compare. When I was a simple fan (oh well -
a simple fanziner), I also liked to rant about awards:
this award is good because the fans vote for it, and that one is...
because it is awarded behind closed doors to uncles in suede
jackets, and they come not from artistic considerations, but from
some of our own, incomprehensible to us. For example, all sisters should have earrings.
But since then I have become a little older (that is - if fantasy-
not easy) and stopped asking such questions.
More precisely, they stopped worrying me. Because every award
should be assessed based on the objectives for which it was established -
lased. And in this regard, all the above awards: a) perfectly complemented
love each other; b) give everyone who is worthy the opportunity not to leave
offended"; V)provide me as a journalist with a lot of material
for various kinds of conclusions and comments. By the way, the last one
The point also applies to those bonuses that for some reason you are in
We were embarrassed to include our list - say, "Golden Serpent". C
on the other hand, since the “Golden Snake” is not on the list, then this is another
evidence that the awards included in the list are truly
prestigious.
   6. The artistic significance of literary works can
determine only the time. Ten to twenty years will pass - something
will remain, but something will die. And I fully admit that something will remain
a work that was not awarded a laureate prize at one time
given. After all, neither Ray Bradbury nor Kurt Vonnegut ever
received a Hugo. And who now, besides specialists (even there, at
them), remembers the novel by Mark Clifton and Frank Riley "Apparently They Were
right" ("Hugo 55")? And by the way, if already then, in the 50s, American 
The Canadians had the Nebula, Bradbury and Vonnegut might not have stayed -
without the awards they deserve. However, I’m not sure. Because
missions are not primarily focused on masterpieces (a masterpiece is rarely
receives recognition immediately), and on the current literary conjun-
kturu. They operate in terms of the relative, not the absolute.
In addition, each prize has its own award mechanism, in which
which involves a greater or lesser degree of lottery. Let's say
degree of lottery BelyaevskayaThe premium is quite small. This is not
means that the Belyaev Prize is bad or biased - it’s just
It's such a mechanism. But “The Wanderer” has a lottery degree of
very high, which, by the way, was confirmed by this year’s awards (eg
For example, in the category “artist” - I almost fell out of my chair). Moreover,
it seems to me, no less high than that of the Interpress-
con". And in this regard, “Gravilet” was simply unlucky. Because “Gra- 
Vilyot" was not included in the final list, I was not at all upset 
less than Vyacheslav Mikhailovich. Perhaps even more - especially since
Moreover, Bulychev (whose novel “The Chronos River” I also highly appreciate
highly) did not deign to come to Interpresscon (more about
this - in the answer to question 11), and Rybakov - here he is, here, angry and
upset. And I’m very glad that Slava received the “Bronze Snail”
and Interpresscon.  But this, again, does not mean that the bonus
"The Wanderer" is less objective than those awarded to "Gravity" 
flight "Tsesarevich". Because there are absolutely objective bonuses in 
kind doesn't exist.
   7. In my opinion, this possibility is absolutely real.
   Firstly, because neither the mechanism for awarding the "Wanderer" nor
the jury is not some kind of reinforced concrete block,
crushing tender young shoots with its weight. And the mechanism will
will be finalized, and the composition of the jury will be expanded - and in the first place
turn at the expense of those authors whom youlisted. Anyway
case, it was these names that were named on the sidelines of the jury - and not only
only before the well-known conflict began, but also much after.
Therefore, one should not attribute problems to purely technical
plan (namely, they are the most difficult now, believe me) have become
tus of ideological or aesthetic disagreements.
   Secondly, there is nothing more changeable than aesthetic preferences.
respect. Yes, turborealism is on horseback today - that is, the direction
tion, which Lazarchuk and Stolyarov personify (as well as
parts, Pelevin). This is true. But tell me other recent things
two years, which, being built on other aesthetic principles,
groin, would not just be separate things in themselves, but fit
would be in some new, clearly formed direction. I, for example,
For example, I can’t name such a direction. But I do not rule out that it
will appear soon. And if it offers us a new perspective on the environment,
existing world, or a new original literary technique, then I think
he will be supported not only by readers, but also by the jury of “The Wanderer”. Including
and Stolyarov and Lazarchuk.
   And finally, lastly. All the authors you mentioned are human
talented. The only problem they have is that they didn’t have time to
time to get into the publishing industry. Or fell out of this stream
reasons beyond their control. The Problem of Publication is the action
Really Problem. However, the current dark streak, I am sure, will pass;can't help but pass. But then those who do not have an advantage will have an advantage.
only talented, but also writes, writes, writes, no matter what -
even if it’s in a desk drawer. And in this regard, it seems to me, the most
Tyurin, Ivanov and Lukyanenko have better chances. By-
what they write. And they write a lot. But Loginov, let’s say, made
two years ago a good novel (the fact that it still hasn’t come out is
just total bad luck, which has been haunting Slava for a long time), with
At that time, as far as I know, he wrote almost nothing. Or
Shchegolev - following the example of Izmailov, he switched to action films. 
This is also a good thing, but is it worth counting on bonuses?
fiction? Next, I simply don’t know what Stern is doing. But in
aware of what Vershinin is doing - big politics on Malaya Arnauts -
coy. It would be better if he did short prose. Even on Bolshaya Arnautskaya,
at least on Deribasovskaya. Therefore, what the hell are aesthetics here?
principles...
   8. And again, gentlemen, you are distorting the cards. Who said that
Is "The Wanderer" the most prestigious award in Russian science fiction? 
Joiners? So he just wants to think so. Just like 
Nikolaev wants to count (although due to his inherent modesty he 
does not say this PUBLICLY) that the most prestigious awards are
"Bronze Snail" and "Interpresscon" - that is, those awards that 
invented and which he, Nikolaev, organizes. And "Snail"
awardedpersonally by Boris Natanovich, based on his results
is very close to the “Wanderer” - doesn’t this mean that she too is sub-
keeps the above literary direction in its desire
to be general? Oh yes, you will refer to Rybakov’s “Gravilet”. Yes
This example does not indicate anything! "Wanderer", in contrast
from "Snail", has been awarded only once so far. That's when he three-
for four years in a row will be awarded to Stolyarov, Lazarchuk and others
to some authors very similar to them (I don’t know any of them, by the way), then-
where it will be possible to draw organizational conclusions. In the meantime, it’s better to do without such
some big words like “suppression of creative freedom.” The KGB is so
for years he could not suppress it, but Stolyarov and his comrades - once or twice and
will they suppress? Honestly, if I were Andrei Mikhailovich, I would be proud -
up to the heavens.
   (I wrote all this and suddenly thought that Stolyarov and
Lazarchuk and the next year are very high - they had a ro- 
mana in “thick” magazines, and what can others oppose to them? 
applicants? Oh, the Publishing Problem!). 
   9. Again twenty-five money for fish. I once had
historical education. True, with an emphasis on Marxism. And although
There is almost nothing left in memory from either one or the other, some
that I still remember. For example, what not to do is far-reaching
conclusions based on an insufficient set of facts. Firstly, again
I'm sure the prize was awarded only once. Secondly, Idealt with
by all members of the jury and I know that they did not vote based on any
then aesthetic principles alien or not alien to them, but from what
their heel itched at that moment - right or left. And from that -
Go, how many glasses of cognac they took the day before. I naturally-
but, I’m exaggerating, but honestly, it’s strange to hear how from a respected
They are trying to create Andrei Mikhailovich Sergei Vladimirovich Obra- 
Ztsov, and from the other respected members of the jury - Exemplary-Showing-
Red Banner Puppet Theater for Children and Adults 
All Rus'. 
   10. Finally, a substantive question. Let me explain. Boris Natanovich
Strugatsky was the first to receive ballot papers - on 
several days earlier than other jury members. It's just that way
it began to shine. And in these few days, at the suggestion of Bulychev (very
scrupulous in matters of human ethics) and it was decided
that the works of the jury members in the forms issued to them will be deducted
rush the secretary - even if it weakens the secret somewhat
voting. So I already gave the forms to the rest of the jury members
crossed out. And I called Boris Natanovich (or asked if
face-to-face meeting - I don’t remember anymore): what we will do with the story
Yaroslavtseva? He said that since his involvement in this thing was 
almost there was no - five or ten percent, then he considers himself
has the right to vote for her on equal terms. However, he is stillwill think. And I left this question to his discretion. Moreover,
that this case is not just complicated - it’s a unique case. This, alas,
is unlikely to ever happen again.
   11. Igor Vsevolodovich did not come because he probably didn’t
I really wanted to go to Interpresscon. I called him until the last minute
moment, I even ordered a train ticket for him. But he referred to the difficulty
Due to family circumstances, he didn’t come. I don't argue, family
circumstances also took place, but the reason is still probably
was in another - and this is my most significant flaw in the
Research Institute "Wanderer". It just so happened that Bulychev turned out to be the only
venny, to whom I was unable to deliver all the necessary texts from the nominated
national list. It was assumed that he would receive texts from Vla-
Dimir Dmitrievich Mikhailov, who in turn organized them 
Moscow guys call (I tearfully asked them for this favor, because
there was a complete mess with the texts, and besides, it’s also another
goy city). However, something didn’t work out there, and before Bulychev the texts
did not arrive on time. He voted on the nomination list
by telephone (voting secrecy was ensured by Boris Natanovich - he
also carried out the calculations for the first round), with gaps in his form-
There were really a lot of them. As for the final voice-
niya... "Andrey, how can I vote for works that
I didn't read? - Igor Vsevolodovich told me two days before"In- 
terpresscona" - and he was absolutely right. So Bulychev’s no-show 
- The fault is mine and only mine. But no other ethical nuances,
I think there was nothing implied in the wording of the question.
   12. To be honest, I was not one hundred percent sure that the bonus
will receive "TF". Oddly enough, “Text” had serious chances,
although this publishing house managed to annoy many of the jury members (including
I have no right to go into details, and I don’t really know).
In addition, the jury members, due to purely ethical considerations, could
give preference generally to someone else - for example, "Se-
North-West" or "World". If I were one hundred percent sure that 
this lottery is a win-win, then I would tell Yutanov about it, and he,
I'm sure I would remove "TF" from the nomination list. On the other hand,
It’s just a shame - this is the first time a prize has appeared (even if it’s by us
invented), in which there is such a category, and what are we - in a hundred
rone? After all, we did something for science fiction in these two years...
yes, isn't it? And not for the sake of money - if we only worked
because of the money, then the books would be sold entirely differently, and about the prize
This conversation probably wouldn’t have even come up. This is not an advertisement on
in fact (at least now), but just a complete hassle
and huge expenses. But in general, to hell with everything - what happened,
it happened. Everyone can have their own opinion on this matter,
I probably don’t have any.You can hang me for this.
   13. You know, I don’t really want to discuss what Yura said
Fleishman. Firstly, he is my old friend, with whom I have everything... 
where there were, if not ideal, then fairly even relationships. Vo-
Secondly, I have already spoken about fandom and bookselling fans.
tsev. Thirdly, no one intentionally tried to offend anyone. And
if someone decided to be offended, then this, sorry, is his personal grief.
They carry water to the offended. And in general: there were, are and will be dissatisfied
always - so maybe we won’t do anything at all, so that no one
not to inadvertently offend?
   That's enough, I'm calling it a day. And so I wrote as much as yes-
I didn’t really write - not even for a fee. So please keep in mind
glass In extreme cases, you can have tea. It's coming.