Candlelight Conversations - Interview taken with Boris Natanovich Strugatsky.

*********************** CANDLELIGHT CONVERSATIONS *********************** 

              BORIS STRUGATSKY: "I WROTE A NOVEL"

  INTERVIEW TAKEN WITH BORIS NATANOVITCH STRUGATSKY September 15
        1994 by Sergei Berezhny and Andrey Nikolaev
          Exclusive interview for Two Hundred magazine.

   BEREZHNOY: Boris Natanovich, first of all, how true is the most
hot news that Boris Strugatsky has written a new novel.
   STRUGATSKY: Wrote.
   BEREZHNOY: We would like a little more detail - again,
as far as you deem possible, without violating your interests - ra-
disclose this information.
   STRUGATSKY: Information... Seryozha, unfortunately, there is a certain
nuance. Since the novel is going under a pseudonym, an elementary feeling
Decency still does not allow me to reveal this pseudo-
him. Even in a circulation of two hundred copies. There's very little I can say
to you. I can't even tell you the nickname this guy goes by.
novel, nor the title of this novel, since this would be a disclosure
pseudonym.
   NIKOLAEV: Everything has already been revealed, Boris Natanovich.
   STRUGATSKY: Perhaps, but not by me. I'm not responsible for actions
foreign intelligence services. But personally, I keep the secret. I am obliged to do this,
if I respect the laws that I myself establish. I can say
that the novel turned out to be big: eighteen and a half copyright
sheets. I can say that I have never been like this in my lifehappy
like when I finished this novel. Because I wasn't originally
I am confident that I will be able to finish it. I can also say that this
the novel is written in the manner of the late Strugatskys and I don’t have the slightest
There is no doubt that any reader familiar with the work of these authors
torov, if he doesn’t immediately guess the author, then in any case
will strongly suspect who is hiding under a pseudonym. I can say
that he handed over this text to the Zvezda magazine, and they promise the first
two parts (there are four parts in the novel) to be published in the tenth issue,
which will be released in December this year, and the third and fourth parts
should be published sometime early next year. I can say
It should be noted that I submitted the text of this novel to two more publishing houses, but
Since the agreements have not been signed, I would not like to name them...
   Well, what else can I tell you... Although I understand that this novel
is not without its shortcomings, I am nevertheless satisfied, because for me
the most important thing was to prove to myself that I was capable of working
one. And this is not a trivial fact at all. A fact that comes out of nowhere
should not be, and the “can-can’t” ratio, as it seemed to me, was
Not even “fifty-fifty”, but much worse, and not in my favor. And then
that I even managed to finish this work, at least, but successfully
moose is a big event for me. And I feel myself (I seem to already
I told this to someone) to a woman in labor who had been suffering for nine months -
tsev, then I sufferedI gave birth, and then, finally, the child appeared. She
does not yet know who will grow out of this child - Academician Sakharov
or Adolf Hitler, she can’t say anything in advance, but
- the child was born, a certain fact has already happened, and then it’s like God
will give. This is roughly how I feel.
   I wrote the novel for a long time, a very long time... I started writing it in 1992,
either in January or February, I don’t remember exactly. Graduated here in
early August 1994. How much is this? More than two years.
   BEREZHNOY: That is, as far as I understand, this is science fiction in the spirit of
the old Strugatskys? Concentrated, realistic, without other mi-
ditch, but something in the spirit of the realistic part of “Burdened with Evil”.
   STRUGATSKY: Yes, this is, in my opinion, classic science fiction
realism, as I imagine it, or realistic fantasy
ka, if you please. That is, this is essentially a realistic
a story imbued with fantastic elements.
   BEREZHNOY: Can’t you at least name the topic more specifically? Or a hint
define some boundaries of fantasy, realism - in
what exactly are they? And in general tell more about the novel
specifically, what did you do it with?
   STRUGATSKY: Dear Seryozha, let's do it this way.
When the novel comes out, we will meet with you, and you will ask me a question -
dew that concern the novel named so-and-so, which
which was published in the magazine "Star". What do I think about thisnovel as a reader? And then we will be able to touch on many issues,
that interest you. At the same time, both the form and
the content will not be affected.
   BEREZHNOY: Boris Natanovich, as far as I know you, I will comply with this -
You will be able to withstand the creation of a pseudonym only until the next “In-
terpresskona" because the novel will probably be nominated for
“Bronze Snail”, but you won’t give it to yourself.
   STRUGATSKY: You know, Seryozha, this is an apparent incident, because
the difficulty will arise only if, in my opinion,
this novel will truly be the best of the year.
   BEREZHNOY: Well, in general it’s a good situation... Something might appear
is that the best?
   STRUGATSKY: If someone, in my opinion, writes stronger
great work, I will give it a prize without a waver...
   NIKOLAEV: It seems to me that your novel should not be inserted into a script.
juice, because you are the only member of the jury... So as not to expose you to any
what possible reproaches, even without giving a reason...
   STRUGATSKY: Under no circumstances should MY novel be inserted, but
Why not insert the novel by Ivanov, Petrov, Vodkin into the backstory?
juice?
   NIKOLAEV: No, Boris Natanovich, there’s some kind of discrepancy here.
I see clearly. If this is your novel, then you should not evaluate it. Even
if he is under a pseudonym.
   STRUGATSKY: How good you are! So, the novel written by Arkady
Natanovich under a pseudonym, could it be included in the list?NIKOLAEV: Yes, of course. And you were asked, by the way. Because
that we had the same lists - both for the “Bronze Snail” and for “In-
terpresskonu". Now, according to the lists for Interpresscon, your novel
under whatever pseudonym it will certainly be inserted, to
Unfortunately, I haven't read the novel yet to be absolutely sure.
But your novel simply doesn’t deserve to be nominated for the Bronze Snail.
wives insert. Because for the author, your novel is the best
without any options, always.
   STRUGATSKY: This is a deep misconception.
   NIKOLAEV: For a real Author, it seems to me that this should be the case
always, and only this way.
   STRUGATSKY: You are mistaken, Andrey.
   NIKOLAEV: I’m not mistaken, and you confirmed this at the last “In-
terpresskone". Your own is always better than someone else's. Objectively so.
Better.
   STRUGATSKY: Not true. I never said that, I just...
Mu that I couldn't say that. This is not true.
   NIKOLAEV: I'm not saying that you said that.
   STRUGATSKY: You said that I confirmed this. I haven't confirmed
this.
   NIKOLAEV: You confirmed it not with words, but with actions.
   STRUGATSKY: Which ones?
   NIKOLAEV: Yes, because they didn’t give the prize to themselves. They said that
Yaroslavtsev's story is better than other stories in the nominations. Horse
But it’s better for you.
   STRUGATSKY: Andrey, apparently I didn’t express myself clearly. I'll try
will be expressed clearly. Maybe someone else misunderstood me as well,
just like you. I refusedgive a reward to Yaroslavtsev, not only because
mu, who seems to have a vested interest in this thing, not because
this thing is so much mine, and so much Arcadia's
Natanovich, but because she turned out to be the best. She turned out to be the best
Shey in the list that you presented. Understand that if there
were "Omon Ra" or "Epistle to the Corinthians" I would calmly give
"Snail" to one of these works.
   NIKOLAEV: Are you sure?
   STRUGATSKY: One hundred percent. There is no pro-
problems. Your idea that every normal author considers
melts his work better than all others, there is simply a misconception
tion.
   NIKOLAEV: Not all others in general in world literature. But in this case
at the current moment among a certain circle of authors, of course
but...
   STRUGATSKY: Absolutely not necessary.
   NIKOLAEV: Why write then if you don’t want to write
better than others?
   STRUGATSKY: The question is not posed correctly. Not "for what?", you
you may ask, “why?” I'll answer. Because it's better not to
it turns out. I would be glad to write better, but it doesn’t work. Well I can't
I can write better than Rybakov. What can I do now: stop
hang yourself?
   NIKOLAEV: Try to write better.
   STRUGATSKY: You definitely have to try. This novel is not half-
I was getting better, I need to make new attempts.
   NIKOLAEV: And if the author himself is satisfied with his novel, because the author is
in most casessatisfied with my work, then I’m sure
Nyaka believes that he wrote better than the others. For example, you can
compare “Monks under the Moon” and “Gravity Plane of the Tsarevich”... So
for Stolyarov, “Monks...” is definitely better than “Gravilet...”, and
for Rybakov it’s the other way around. And take any equal authors, each to his own
the work will be considered the best.
   STRUGATSKY: Andrey! Firstly, you speak on behalf of Rybakov
and Stolyarov, which is incorrect.
   NIKOLAEV: I said figuratively. I could say: writers X and Y...
   STRUGATSKY: And this is incorrect. You just think that if someone
tortured a novel or story, then he considers it better than anything else
at least it was written in the foreseeable time. This is wrong.
After all, if I love my son more than anyone in the world, then this is
does not mean that I think he is better than all other young people
his age who surround me. Not at all, although I love him
more than anyone. Don't you feel the similarity?
   NIKOLAEV: Boris Natanovich, I have already thought about this topic. Yes, here you go
my children are very beautiful and for me, I emphasize - for me, they
will always be better. And if they put ten boys in front of me
and I will need to give a prize in my name to the best, then like you
Who do you think I'll give it to? And then the same thing, they put the top ten
boys, ten works. And they ask you to present the award yourself
the best...
   STRUGATSKY: Yes, you are asking the question incorrectly. If in front of you
will putten boys and will tell you to give the prize to your favorite one,
then, of course, you should give it to your son, but if you
there should be a prize for the best...
   NIKOLAEV: All the same...
   BEREZHNOY: All the boys need to be driven to the Hamburg tavern,
so that they can flog each other there...
   STRUGATSKY: I don’t agree with Andrei here, although probably this
point of view also has a right to exist. But I think that
one’s own work can be the most beloved and at the same time the author
understands perfectly well that Ivanov wrote a more elegant novel, and
Petrov wrote a more exciting novel, and Semyonov wrote a novel
more fresh in theory. Although the most beloved, the most mature, the most
Of course, your novel is painfully beloved. One to the other ab-
does not contradict at all.
   NIKOLAEV: It still seems to me, although I am no longer a member of the nomination
on the commission that your novel, under a pseudonym, is still not worth it
or not, to be included in the list for the award, where you are the only judge.
   STRUGATSKY: Andrey, this is exactly what the nomination committee decides
mission. I can say that if she does not consider it necessary to stand up,
to add this novel to the list, although I have such a right, I insert
Of course I won’t kill him. But if this nominating commission agrees
It feels necessary to insert, I will evaluate this novel exactly like this
same as the others. Completely objective. And although this novel will be
my favorite, that doesn't mean I think it's my favoritethe best.
If I don't think it's the best, then there won't be any problems.
children...
   NIKOLAEV: And if you count?
   STRUGATSKY: If I think so, then I’ll say so, exactly the same,
as in the case of Yaroslavtsev. I’ll say: “Guys, unfortunately, the most
It seemed to me that the best among those that were submitted on the list was this:
this novel, but I cannot give it a prize for ethical reasons -
yam." That's it.
   NIKOLAEV: Boris Natanovich, but refusal to give a bonus is, according to
Essentially, an award ceremony. "Bronze Snail" Award for 1993
Yaroslavtsev received the "story" nomination. Although nominally you are her
they didn’t give it to him, and the statuette itself remained with the organizing committee, but all this
was perceived that way. That's it, it's a fact and nothing else. I tell you
I suggest this option: here are the lists for Interpresscon
and according to "Snail", so here is the list that is provided to you, i.e.
is typical, except for one point - the novel by Strugatsky is not inserted into it.
th.
   STRUGATSKY: Andrey, I have nothing against this option.
Please. In my opinion, my attitude towards this problem has been exhausted.
convincingly stated.
   BEREZHNOY: Boris Natanovich, you are not entirely consistent. If
if we strictly kept the secret of our pseudonym, then there was no need to say
Please note that your novel is published in the tenth issue of Zvezda. We will see
dim...
   STRUGATSKY: You know, they promise one thing in the magazine, but it turns out
completely different. If the need arises to chat formally,
Xia, thenIt will always be possible to blurt it out formally. Seryozha, how do you like it?
explain the situation? I don't reveal my nickname, not because I want to
really hide your authorship. I do this for reasons
ethical. There is no such writer Boris Strugatsky, no. Writer
there are Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, there is such a writer. To co-
It's a pity he doesn't write anymore. Writer Boris Strugatsky does not exist
exists in the same way that the writer Arkady Strugatsky does not exist. Yes
translator A. Strugatsky, there is a publicist A. Strugatsky, there is an essayist
seist A. Strugatsky, but there is no writer A. Strugatsky, there is a writer
S. Yaroslavtsev. This is our agreement, which is probably already three-
twenty years. I don't want to break this agreement. I understand that
it has long lost the meaning it had when we were both alive
you, and when it was extremely important for us to act in unified formation,
always together. Now it’s like observing a certain formality.
So, let this formality be observed. In our life, after all
many formalities that we observe are not because they are
are national, necessary, we just feel some need for
this. When you meet a scoundrel, you say to him, “Hello.”
Although in fact you don’t wish him health at all, but that he
I quickly died a painful death. But keeping the formality, you
tell him: “Hello,” that is, “Be healthy.” Very
many such formalities, I tookexample lying on the surface.
   CAREFUL. Boris Natanovich, you decided to keep the secret
pseudonym, to the same extent that the pseudonym was maintained
"S. Yaroslavtsev" before Arkady Natanovich died. Not ka-
Do you expect that this decision will come into sharp conflict with
the interests of the publishers who will publish this novel?
   STRUGATSKY: Absolutely. I have already had the honor of discussing this trial
leme with several interviewers. And I remember the smartest thing is that I
said about this, it sounded something like this: “It’s even interesting-
but." Let's see which publisher will take this novel, not because
that it was written by a man with a famous surname, but because the novel
he will like it because he will consider it “passable”. Although I prefer
I clearly understand that for each publisher this will be a well-known
losing. I have already had cases when foreign translators
clearly shied away from the high honor of translating this novel when
learned that a pseudonym is a necessary condition. So I haven't yet
I know what the publishers to whom I gave the novel will answer. Although
one of the publishers quite reasonably said: “Naturally, we will
keep the secret of a pseudonym, but we cannot forbid any lo-
the author should put a sign on your book “Novel by B. Strugatsky”
under the pseudonym so-and-so." So I don’t have much of a problem here either
I see.
   NIKOLAEV: Sorry, but such an immodest question (I’m fineI know how you react to them). So you are satisfied with the experience of pi-
sania alone, did I understand your words correctly, Boris Natanovich?
This was a one-time goal to prove to myself that I “can”, or you
only tried in a new guise, in order to then continue and continue
should?
   STRUGATSKY: No, I haven’t started anything new yet. And I don’t know yet
Shall I start? But the main thing for me is that I proved to myself that
I can. This is the main thing. Eighteen and a half copyright foxes
comrade - I CAN. HOW can I, this is another question, but to answer this
The question is not for me.
   NIKOLAEV: Boris Natanovich, and “Operation White Queen” was discarded
on you?
   STRUGATSKY: Honestly, I think about her. And even some ve-
I came up with cabbage soup. But I'm still not sure I'll take it on.
   NIKOLAEV: So there is no text yet?
   STRUGATSKY: No, there is no text. There are several electronic
pages on the computer, but very few.
   NIKOLAEV: Several are five, ten, twenty or more
hundred? Simply, if it’s more than a hundred, then finish it so it doesn’t go to waste.
   STRUGATSKY: No, of course not. Several pages. I don't remember
say five pages. And this is not text. This is everything: episodes, ideas,
individual phrases, etc.
   BEREZHNOY: Boris Natanovich, I’m now going to ask a somewhat strange question
question. How much did Arkady Nathano help you write this novel?
HIV?
   STRUGATSKY: I don’t know, I can’t answer this question. I'm
I remember onea correspondent once asked me: “When do you start
working on a new thing, do these twelve help you somehow?
how many volumes are there on the shelf? I answered him honestly that I
I don’t know anything about this. They probably help. And Arkady Natanovich,
it probably helps somehow. But it’s not in my consciousness - it’s probably
lies in the subconscious, I don’t hear it in my consciousness.
   BEREZHNOY: Thank you.
   STRUGATSKY: Although, of course, there have been cases more than once, and this
I remember when I, figuratively speaking, pounded the table with my fist
at the thought that if I were not alone, then we would have this obstacle,
this traffic jam would have been passed long ago, but now I’m forced to do it again,
again, again, powerless to return.
   BEREZHNOY: One question that will no longer directly concern
specifically your creativity. Recently, several new
freely significant things written by members of your seminar, and
writers who work in a manner close to realistic fan
tastic, I mean the novels by A. Lazarchuk “Soldiers of Babylon”,
A. Stolyarova "I am the mouse king."
   STRUGATSKY: Has he left yet?
   BEREZHNOY: Yes, it came out in Neva. And from those novels that
have been out for quite some time, but continue to remain new for us -
mi, this is "Gravilet Tsesarevich". It is clear that the novels are very different and
concept, and in approach, now another novel has been added to them. U
you are not under the impression that the Fourth Wave, to which we attributeyou, has reached a certain milestone when fundamental books are being created,
when books are created not of growth, but books of maturity.
   STRUGATSKY: Again, I will refer to the interview that I gave
relatively recently, when there was a standard question: “Who is
my favorite student?" - I answered, as always, that I don’t have
favorites, I love them all. Then I said that I was waiting a lot
from this young growth that you called the Fourth Wave. I
I’m waiting for a breakthrough into a new literary space. Named by you
the novels are all good, any of them is worthy of a prize, any of them is de-
ten years ago I would have composed the name of the author and caused a stir in
among the reading intelligentsia, but not one of them is, as
It seems to me a breakthrough into a new literary space. Very
it's hard to explain what I mean. Since we are talking about fan
tastics, then in my memory a breakthrough into a new literary space
The project was started by Ivan Efremov with the Andromeda Nebula, and completed by
a group of writers, among whom, I will say without false modesty,
A. and B. Strugatsky played an important role. These are the six
the captains burst into a completely new fantasy world, which
they didn’t know this in Russia before. So they created this new literary
new space. Call it what you want. They wrote things of their own
completely different from what happened ten or even five years before
them. Let literary critics decide whatfundamental difference
between the fiction of the sixties and the fiction of the pentecostals
cov. I intuitively feel this fundamental difference. And here in
later the second, third, then fourth generation expanded
this literary space, they opened new niches there, new and
new opportunities, they cut down forests there, stopped rivers, built
cities created completely new worlds according to completely new principles
tsipam, not seen in the twenties and thirties. Well, what about
we are people now - this is a continuation of still mastering the same
science fiction and literary opened in the early sixties
space. I don’t see yet a single thing that has broken through
somewhere even further. All this is still only more or less
degrees, better or worse, but continues those already created in the sixties
10th and subsequent years of tradition. I don't know if I answered yours
question. But intuitively I perceive it this way. I
I expected a lot from Lazarchuk’s novel “Soldiers of Babylon” (here
The “unseemly” role was played by Andrei Mikhalych Stolyarov, who
he praised this novel very much to me and kept saying that it was
something fundamentally new), but I didn’t see anything fundamentally new.
I saw a good, powerful novel written by a man with great
molded imagination, who perfectly mastered the entire methodological
of the previous generation of writers. But I didn't see it in this
thingsbreakthrough into a new space. It's all made up of elements
what we have already gone through. God forbid, this is not bad! Under no circumstances
However, I don’t want to say that Lazarchuk wrote a weak, secondary novel.
ny. On the contrary, the novel is excellent, and millions of people will read it
with pleasure. But I can’t call it a breakthrough into something new. I don't
I can name such an example neither for this year, nor for the previous year or two.
future, although excellent novels were written. I don't think that
and the novel that I made is a breakthrough into something new, that too
development of old materials, old techniques, old principles.
If I knew what the new technique was, I would, of course, use it
already used it a long time ago. But I hope it feels like this
that a new direction was about to emerge. There is a feeling:
the situation has matured, there are writers, they have matured, it seems to me, new methods
wild, but no one has bothered to discover them yet. Maybe -
I couldn’t, I don’t know.
   BEREZHNOY: This breakthrough of the sixties, it was associated with
the fact that many restrictions have disappeared, and, apparently, the next
the breakthrough will also be due to the fact that science fiction will have a big
degree of freedom. Is this even possible?
   STRUGATSKY: I don’t think this analogy is correct, because
A modern writer has enough degrees of freedom. Today
the writer is not limited by anyone except his own, finding
restrictions within it:aesthetic, ethical, maybe
maybe worldview. If there are restrictions, then they are related to
the author with his background, with his biography, with his presentation
about what is good, what is bad in literature, and so on. External
there are no restrictions. The sixties faced external restrictions.
niya, and when these restrictions collapsed, there really was a flood of
flood. Everything that people kept within themselves, hoarded, all their ideas
thinking about what literature should be and what it shouldn’t be, all this at once
it exploded: a new science fiction appeared. Now external restrictions
there are no differences. Now almost ten years have passed since external
restrictions have virtually disappeared.
   I must say, when I wrote my novel, I felt
indescribably free. I could afford everything I wanted. All
the limitations I set for myself were my own
restrictions. No social restrictions, no external
there was no sense of censorship. This, by the way, is a very new feeling,
strange. But our youth managed to write in this new situation
two, three or four novels each, so there’s nothing new for them
no. But there is no breakthrough yet either.
   NIKOLAEV: Aren’t you afraid that new people will make a breakthrough?
which you don't even know. That this will not be Stolyarov’s breakthrough,
Lazarchuk, Rybakov, Stern, and completely unfamiliar new people,
and they will not go in the direction in which you still subconsciouslyAre you really hoping and waiting?
   STRUGATSKY: Andryusha, not only am I not afraid (to be afraid here is absolutely
there’s absolutely nothing), but I’m almost sure that this will happen. And most
the unpleasant thing in this situation will be that a breakthrough will take place and - not
will be recognized by us.
   NIKOLAEV: Maybe it already exists, we just don’t see it yet?
   STRUGATSKY: No. Do you understand what’s the matter, when fantasy arose?
style of the sixties, readers accepted it with a bang, and the literary
criticism, even the most liberal, accepted it
I'm kind of offended. 'Cause she was raised to imagine
the forties and fifties, and this new thing seemed ridiculous to them,
wrong. Actually, what new happened? Realism entered
fiction. Until the sixties, there was no realism in science fiction.
Each work of fiction was, in essence,
things, worse or better written textbook of life. That's right
this is not correct. Black and white. Good - bad. They were like that
posters. And then in the sixties, realism burst into fiction,
living life as it actually exists.
Not everyone liked this. Must be something like this
happening now. For example, I am with great interest, no, with
interest is not the right word, but I watch with curiosity how fantasy
conquers the market. After all, now readers and fantasy lovers
probably more than fans of the so-called hardfiction.
Maybe fantasy is new. But the point is that fantasy
well mastered in the West...
   NIKOLAEV: Boris Natanovich, don’t you think that under the fact that
you said that Zvyagintsev’s novel is very good. With one hundred
The critics categorically do not accept this novel, and you are like a cry-
You don't take teak either...
   STRUGATSKY: No, the trouble is that I don’t accept this as reading
tel.
   NIKOLAEV: But the readers voted for his novel...Not pro-
one hundred so, it was not the Zvyagin fans who presented him with the award, but precisely the same
the people who subsequently gave the award to "Gravilet". Isn't it really
alarming? Maybe this is Vasily Zvyagintsev’s novel
breakthrough?
   BEREZHNOY: If there had been “Gravilet” that year, Zvyagintsev would have probably
Overall, I wouldn't have received the award...
   NIKOLAEV: Not a fact.
   STRUGATSKY: Andrey, well, as for Zvyagintsev, I don’t see
there is nothing new in this novel. I'm not talking about private shortcomings
I say... The main drawback of the novel is the complete absence
there is something new in it.
   NIKOLAEV: It seems so to you, Boris Natanovich...
   STRUGATSKY: No, no, no, no! When literary critics don't
accepted, say, the early Strugatskys or the early Gansovsky, they
did not deny the novelty, they understood perfectly well that, yes, here they came
writers who write differently from Nemtsov, Kazantsev, Okhotnikov.
They understood that it was written in a new way. They don't like this novelty
curled. That's what it's all aboutcase. I didn't like the novelty. They don't
They believed that science fiction should be realistic. If Tynyanov
“Tynyanov!” reproached Alexei Tolstoy for the fact that his Mars was too
realistic!.. Tynyanov! The number one quantity in our literary
criticism! So what do you want from the average ordinary critic?
even the most conscientious and liberal... It’s another matter that
I don't know fantasy well, I don't like this genre... Maybe there
some completely new, previously unknown processes are taking place.
sy? But I simply don’t presume to judge this. As for the reality
stical fiction, then I repeat: if there is no main thing, there is no novelty.
All this... Well, it's, you know, like after... I don't even know what
example... how after "Fathers and Sons" Tolstoy writes "War and Peace".
A great work, brilliant, wonderful, but it is not
breakthrough into new literature! This is the same so-called
critical realism, there is nothing fundamentally new here. Here
when "The Master and Margarita" appears - this is where the most brutal
a good critic understands that something new has arisen, there was no such thing
earlier! No, of course, they realize that N.V. Gogol is in such
manner worked once, but nevertheless, today it is completely
a new kind of literature - very uncharacteristic, very atypical, neither
nothing like... So I'm waiting for something similar... And now
everyone writes good and even wonderful novels in the sameif you like, in a fantastic-realistic manner. One by one
same principle. There is no violation of this principle. This is good
what a bad thing...
   NIKOLAEV: And what about Alexander Shchegolev’s story “Night Forever”? About
a boy with an invented psychology?
   STRUGATSKY: No, this is just a good science fiction detective story...
Moreover, fantasy occurs in the most unexpected area - in the area
the science of psychology, where it seemed impossible to fantasize - but, as it turns out -
called, can you...
   NIKOLAEV: So isn’t this a breakthrough? Once "it seemed impossible, but
It turns out it’s possible,” so isn’t this something new?
   STRUGATSKY: Well, maybe Andrey. I don’t dare to argue, I won’t
Rus'... Maybe these are some glimpses of something new, maybe...
The thing is not trivial. Shchegolev generally goes some kind of HIS way
path. He seems to be using old techniques and old
manners, but all the time he does it in his own way. C
"Love of the Beast" it began.  "Love of a Beast" is very strange
thing, it stands on the side, it is not mainstream, it is, so to speak, closer
to some shore, some flank of the mainstream. Very original
linen thing. The devil knows, maybe Shchegolev will be the first
a person who will make some kind of breakthrough. While there is old bo-
more. But maybe if there was more new in it, I would
just rejected it.
   NIKOLAEV: Okay, you reject Tyurin’s prose for the most part.
   STRUGATSKY: No,I reject Tyurin’s prose for completely different reasons
considerations. The fact is that Tyurin is located on a completely different
in the middle of nowhere, he is still trying to write science fiction. Here
What is Tyurin’s problem? Tyurin won’t understand, or doesn’t want to understand.
mother, or he doesn't like to understand that it's science fiction time
it's over. Now I'm reading his new novel...
   NIKOLAEV: “The last miracle weapon of the country of the Soviets”?
   STRUGATSKY: Yes. The novel is very different from what Tyurin
wrote before... This is certainly a step in the right direction, but
Sasha, too, can’t resist being verbose, gracefully
written pseudoscientific periods that are absolutely unnecessary in
modern novel. In a novel that claims to be a work of fiction,
of a new work. All this is superfluous, all this is unnecessary... It's like
if it suddenly occurred to M.A. Bulgakov to describe
the scientific basis of Woland's magic, and he would devote three
four paragraphs using words such as “microfields”, “pseu-
vdocorpuscles", etc.
   BEREZHNOY: Well, he depicted Professor Persikov’s beam?
   STRUGATSKY: So his story is an order of magnitude weaker...
It’s just not completely new, it’s just that
an example of a great writer writing bling. And this trinket-
the shka sparkles and shines among works of the same type simply
because it was written by the Master. But that's the only reason.BEREZHNOY: And what about the pituitary gland transplant by Professor Preobrazhensky?
   STRUGATSKY: Thank God, you pay attention - there was enough
Mikhail Afanasyevich’s sense of tact does not delve into
scientific side. Although he is a doctor, and it would seem that he could seduce
to be. But I wasn’t tempted! Because he felt how much it was
would be aesthetically unnecessary. He understood perfectly well that it was
It's not a science fiction novel, it's symbolism, a parable,
fable... But Sasha Tyurin (whom I love very much) has
there is this...he can’t part with his love for science fiction
stick, to Science Fiction. Everything seems to him like science fiction
ical ideas contain something essential and important. No there
nothing. No. A time when sci-fi ideas amazed
the reader's imagination has long since passed. There was such a time, there was
but those times are gone. Science is no longer exotic. Science bo-
It’s no longer a miracle - science is everyday life. With all the consequences that follow from here -
actions