A. Privalov - Last year's snow was falling.

                         A. PRIVALOV

                    LAST YEAR'S SNOW FELL

   The literary results of the past year have been summed up. In general
race for prizes for reading and writing awards, as well as for
At the finish line of any race, the winners are revealed. And, accordingly,
losers. Alas. However, we know: they are losers too
winners. Only by other indicators.
   The year 1994 turned out to be unprecedentedly rich in strong public-
tions. This applies to almost all categories of nomination lists.
"Snails" and "Interpresscon" (with the possible exception of cata-
goria "Criticism, journalism and literary criticism" - but about that
a little later). Let's start, as usual, with novels.
   I do not at all absolutize my literary taste - but I am also shy
It seems like I haven’t had to deal with him yet. So, to my
taste, there were three real contenders for the award for best novel. 
It was simply impossible to make a choice between them - I had to
compare the incomparable. "The Many-Armed God of Dalain" by Loginov - the idea
great combination of attractive form, clear thought, bright antu-
rage and geometric correctness. The ideal of a readable novel.
"Soldiers of Babylon" by Lazarchuk - a brilliant aesthetic post- 
swarming, an abyss of meanings and interpretations, the quintessence of philosophical
prose. The ideal of an intellectual novel. "Where we are not" Uspens-
someone - sparkling humor,countless allusions, great 
seasoned style. The ideal of the postmodern novel.
   It is not surprising that every novel of this series received an award.
troikas. Readers presented “Interpresscon” to the democratic Loginov,
Strugatsky presented the "Bronze Snail" to the intellectual 
Lazarchuk, postmodern writers presented “The Wanderer” with utmost 
postmodernist Uspensky.
   However, when voting for the Interpresscon award, everything was
more than predictable: "Soldiers of Babylon" is a difficult novel for
reading and perception, and “Where We Are Not” breaks off mid-sentence
ve. At the same time, all three candidates were approximately equal
new conditions in terms of availability - “Soldiers of Babylon” and “There
where we are not" was published in a magazine with a very small circulation, and the book 
Loginova, although released in a circulation five times larger, was greatly over- 
I was late with the release, and managed to read it far before Interpresscon
not all. But those who managed to read "The Many-Armed..." have a choice
there was virtually no hesitation for the favorite. Forty-seven first places from
one hundred twelve! Loginov's novel was mentioned among the three favorites
on ballots 70 times. For comparison: this figure for "Sol-
dates..." - 40, for Uspensky's novel - 34. 
   In general, the summation of votes cast for a nomination is beyond
depending on the position in the ballot shows quite clearly
popularity of the book. The meaning of this figure is quite clear:voters
chose the three best novels/novels/stories - each with their own
three. As a rule, the problem was not to name the con-
books, but to arrange them “in order of rank” (at the extreme
At least, I personally suffered from this very thing). Roman Loginov remembered
almost everyone who read it. And, of course, some of those who talk about him
I just heard.
   Nominations for novels were well-echeloned this year
- right on the heels of the favorites until the voting itself,
so many unusual books. This list opens with "Maksar Blades"
Bryder and Chadovich, continues "Galactic Consul" Filenko, 
"Reserve for Academicians" by Bulychev and "Twilight of the World" by Oldie. When 
Despite all the external dissimilarity of the books listed, they also have a common
feature: they are made by professionals and are definitely oriented
on the reader, and not on eternal life in bookcases. The reader is
appreciated - hence the relatively high scores.
   The tail car on this list was Krapivin’s novel
"Tales of Fishermen and Fishes", written, of course, by a professional 
nalally, but without fundamental findings. With the richest arrangements
the quality of "Blade of the Maksars" and "Twilight of the World" is simple and in order
Krapivin's played melody hopelessly loses... Just like
the strict traditionalism of Kazmenko’s “Lord of the Puppets”.
   Now the outsiders. Please note: I call outsiders
positions specified in five orless ballots. These are the novels of Sla-
Povsky (11 points), Gromov, Stolyarov (10 points each) and Dashkov 
(6 points). A motley bunch, however. Andrey Mikhailovich - and debut -
tants...It seems that "The Mouse King" was simply not read by the public
- previously, Stolyarov’s major works held steady in
top ranks of popularity...
   A completely special story with Kurkov’s novel. "Bickford's World"
received a small Booker Prize - and was mentioned only in
seven ballots when voting for the award of Interpresscon.
Let's take it as a given that fandom's tastes do not coincide with the tastes of
Booker jury - and let's rest on this...
   The long-suffering “Catalysis” by Skalandis, “I am not me” by Slapovsky
and “I am the Mouse King” by Stolyarov. Actually, precisely due to
precisely such novels, literary highly significant,
but very few are read, nomination lists are inflated
up to one and a half to two dozen positions... And if it were accepted
decision to limit the number of positions in the nomination list, then
most likely, it would be these “outsiders” who would have been eliminated...
   Now let's turn to the list of stories. Victory of "Mark of the Dragon"
Sergei Kazmenko looks quite natural - in terms of quantity 
This story certainly takes first place. Victory on points
Kazmenko is clearly not so convincing, and in terms of the number of mentions 
in the ballots, Uspensky’s story even came out ahead (“The Sign of Dra-Kona" is listed in 40 bulletins, "Dear Comrade King" - in 46, 
"Night Forever" by Shchegolev - at 41). 
   I was amazed how many votes were given for Shchego's story.
left - which outwardly does not even try to look fantastic. 
However, "Bronze Snail" and third place in results
voting... Simply fantastic.
   The divide between leaders and underdogs in this category
voting is quite clearly noticeable - these are two stories by G.L. Oldie,
according to the voting results, firmly established in the middle of the list
ska. Add to this the approximately similar rating given by
the public of their "Twilight of the World". On the one hand, this is a sign that
the author(s) have already earned a name for themselves, and on the other hand, that the current
the public is guided approximately by his (their) level of prose.
   The author's duets of Bryder and Chadovich also have stable advantages
and Burkina and Lukyanenko. A wonderful story, in my opinion, by Fir-
the owl scored surprisingly few points - 34 points, and is located in the bottom 
the lower half of the list with intellectual prose by Slapovsky, Ana-
Tolia Kim and Pavel Amnuel. 
   Stories - again three clear leaders (Lukyanenko, Stern and Kazme-
nko). A step below are Nikolai Romanetsky and Lev Vershinin. According to us- 
For those who stand, there are bright stories at the bottom of the list - for example,
stories by Alferova, Mayevsky, Truskinovskaya...
   But with criticism the situation is almost catastrophic. Published
minimalRybakov's book seemed to be the only one with a larger circulation.
less obvious contender for Interpresscon - but then
Did it seem too complicated to the readers, or did it just not hit the mark?
hands of the majority of voters - as, indeed, the monograph by B.
Lanina. The appearance in the list of this category of Stern's story and 
Pelevin's tale also raised a number of questions - despite the undoubted
great merits of these works, it is not at all obvious that these are
rather criticism/journalism/literary criticism than artistic
great prose... Perhaps Vadim's article that received Interpresscon
Kazakova gives rise to less doubts in this sense: at least 
At least, this material is written in the form of a review - even if it is a review
Zii on a book that does not exist, but directly relates to the texts
real stories by the Strugatskys...
   Conclusions.
   First. With the growing number of domestic auto fiction publications,
The voting results are becoming more and more unpredictable -
mi. If about
hundreds of people, then the influence of random factors on the result will be
grow in direct proportion to the intensity of competition between works. B
in general, the bonus is still somewhat reminiscent of a lottery; in the future
this will become even more noticeable. I don't think anything is needed with this
do - a game is a game, and you shouldn’t accept losing in it
with the tragedy of the unfortunate Lear ("...People are flies. The gods love ustear off the wings..."). 
   Second. But with the active influence of party winds on the performance
voting dates, we need to do something now. Party - one
from those random factors that were mentioned in the previous paragraph-
tse. 10 points for Stolyarov’s novel - 127 points for Shchegole’s story
wow... Yes, this comparison is incorrect (if only because things 
these were voted in different categories), but still: according to complexity
ty, in mood, in impression - it seems to me - this is a product
knowledge is more or less equivalent. And isn’t there a cruel joke playing here?
last year's swearing, which began at Interpresscon and was picked up
"Two hundred"? 
   Another example - this time more speculative. Let's say
a story will be published by Vokha Vasiliev, whose fandom seems to be neo-
deliberately preparing to replace Zavgorodny as fan #1.
Vasiliev is a golden man, who would argue, and a handsome man, and that’s all 
and so on... But imagine: his story comes out. How are you
do you think what position the vote will place this story?
Interpresscon participants - and what will influence this vote
more: the merits of the story itself - or I’ll throw the gate wide open -
that soul?
   Third. We must finally completely abandon the word "ob-
"activity" in relation to literary awards. They are not objective
there will never be. Trying to remove the influence of subjective factors on
voting results, we will get no approximationto some abst-
practical objectivity, but averaging the results. Averaging over
all parameters. Let's smooth out the relationship between the literary level
book and its chances of winning a prize. And no more.
   Fourth. It’s terrible that almost no one tracks the pub-
lications of fiction in periodicals. If five or six years ago EVERY
a self-respecting fan considered it his duty to subscribe to "Ural
pathfinder", "Chemistry and life", "Knowledge is power", "Technology - young 
zhi" and "Book Review", then today... - Eh! Where is the money for everything? 
take it? - Yes, at least for one set for the nomination committee!
- So... and there’s no money for one set... - What about sponsors? Where is the spon-
litter?!! - So...
   Everything nowadays comes down to this “duc”. Unfortunately.
   In general, my respects - yes for your reading